On Mon, 2 May 2016 12:42:33 +0200 Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > @@ -2038,14 +2039,16 @@ out: > if (block_ns <= vcpu->halt_poll_ns) > ; > /* we had a long block, shrink polling */ > - else if (vcpu->halt_poll_ns && block_ns > halt_poll_ns) > + else if (!vcpu_valid_wakeup(vcpu) || > + (vcpu->halt_poll_ns && block_ns > halt_poll_ns)) > shrink_halt_poll_ns(vcpu); > /* we had a short halt and our poll time is too small */ > else if (vcpu->halt_poll_ns < halt_poll_ns && > - block_ns < halt_poll_ns) > + block_ns < halt_poll_ns && vcpu_valid_wakeup(vcpu)) Isn't that vcpu_valid_wakeup() check superflous, as we have collected all !vcpu_valid_wakeup() cases in the previous if? > grow_halt_poll_ns(vcpu); > } else > vcpu->halt_poll_ns = 0; > + vcpu_reset_wakeup(vcpu); > > trace_kvm_vcpu_wakeup(block_ns, waited); > } -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
