On 09/10/21 04:12, Sean Christopherson wrote:
Calculate the halt-polling "stop" time using "cur" instead of redoing ktime_get(). In the happy case where hardware correctly predicts do_halt_poll, "cur" is only a few cycles old. And if the branch is mispredicted, arguably that extra latency should count toward the halt-polling time. In all likelihood, the numbers involved are in the noise and either approach is perfectly ok.
Using "start" makes the change even more obvious, so: Calculate the halt-polling "stop" time using "start" instead of redoing ktime_get(). In practice, the numbers involved are in the noise (e.g., in the happy case where hardware correctly predicts do_halt_poll and there are no interrupts, "start" is probably only a few cycles old) and either approach is perfectly ok. But it's more precise to count any extra latency toward the halt-polling time. Paolo