On 2019/11/12 4:13, Sean Christopherson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 07:55:00PM +0800, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
vcpu->halt_poll_ns could be zeroed in certain cases (e.g. by
halt_poll_ns = 0). If halt_poll_grow_start is zero,
vcpu->halt_poll_ns will never be bigger than zero.
Use param callback to avoid writing zero to halt_poll_grow_start.
This doesn't explain why allowing an admin to disable halt polling by
writing halt_poll_grow_start=0 is a bad thing. Paolo had the same
question in v1, here[1] and in the guest driver[2].
[1]https://lkml.kernel.org/r/57679389-6e4a-b7ad-559f-3128a608c28a@xxxxxxxxxx
[2]https://lkml.kernel.org/r/391dd11b-ebbb-28ff-5e57-4a795cd16a1b@xxxxxxxxxx
Ok, answer all the same questions about grow_start=0 here.
VCPU halt polling time may be nonzero even if grow_start=0, such as in below situation:
0=grow_start< block_ns< (vcpu->halt_poll_ns)< halt_poll_ns
grow_start=0 has your mentioned effect only in below sequence:
1. set halt_poll_ns=0 to disable halt polling(this lead to vcpu->halt_poll_ns=0)
2. set grow_start=0
3. set halt_poll_ns to nonzero
4. Admin expect halt polling time auto adjust in range [0, nonzero], but polling time stick at 0.
So I think we should use halt_poll_ns=0 to disable halt polling instead of grow_start=0.
Zhenzhong
