All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
	Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
	Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com>,
	kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
	Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
	linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/14] KVM: Don't block+unblock when halt-polling is successful
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 10:50:05 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <878rzlass2.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210925005528.1145584-8-seanjc@google.com>

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 01:55:21 +0100,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> 
> Invoke the arch hooks for block+unblock if and only if KVM actually
> attempts to block the vCPU.  The only non-nop implementation is on arm64,
> and if halt-polling is successful, there is no need for arm64 to put/load
> the vGIC as KVM hasn't relinquished control of the vCPU in any way.

This doesn't mean that there is no requirement for any state
change. The put/load on GICv4 is crucial for performance, and the VMCR
resync is a correctness requirement.

> 
> The primary motivation is to allow future cleanup to split out "block"
> from "halt", but this is also likely a small performance boost on arm64
> when halt-polling is successful.
> 
> Adjust the post-block path to update "cur" after unblocking, i.e. include
> vGIC load time in halt_wait_ns and halt_wait_hist, so that the behavior
> is consistent.  Moving just the pre-block arch hook would result in only
> the vGIC put latency being included in the halt_wait stats.  There is no
> obvious evidence that one way or the other is correct, so just ensure KVM
> is consistent.

This effectively reverts 07ab0f8d9a12 ("KVM: Call
kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking early into the blocking sequence"), which was a
huge gain on arm64, not to mention a correctness fix.

Without this, a GICv4 machine will always pay for the full poll
penalty, going into schedule(), and only then get a doorbell interrupt
signalling telling the kernel that there was an interrupt.

On a non-GICv4 machine, it means that interrupts injected by another
thread during the pooling will be evaluated with an outdated priority
mask, which can result in either a spurious wake-up or a missed
wake-up.

If it means introducing a new set of {pre,post}-poll arch-specific
hooks, so be it. But I don't think this change is acceptable as is.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
	Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
	Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
	Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
	Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
	Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
	Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
	Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/14] KVM: Don't block+unblock when halt-polling is successful
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 10:50:05 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <878rzlass2.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210925005528.1145584-8-seanjc@google.com>

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 01:55:21 +0100,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> 
> Invoke the arch hooks for block+unblock if and only if KVM actually
> attempts to block the vCPU.  The only non-nop implementation is on arm64,
> and if halt-polling is successful, there is no need for arm64 to put/load
> the vGIC as KVM hasn't relinquished control of the vCPU in any way.

This doesn't mean that there is no requirement for any state
change. The put/load on GICv4 is crucial for performance, and the VMCR
resync is a correctness requirement.

> 
> The primary motivation is to allow future cleanup to split out "block"
> from "halt", but this is also likely a small performance boost on arm64
> when halt-polling is successful.
> 
> Adjust the post-block path to update "cur" after unblocking, i.e. include
> vGIC load time in halt_wait_ns and halt_wait_hist, so that the behavior
> is consistent.  Moving just the pre-block arch hook would result in only
> the vGIC put latency being included in the halt_wait stats.  There is no
> obvious evidence that one way or the other is correct, so just ensure KVM
> is consistent.

This effectively reverts 07ab0f8d9a12 ("KVM: Call
kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking early into the blocking sequence"), which was a
huge gain on arm64, not to mention a correctness fix.

Without this, a GICv4 machine will always pay for the full poll
penalty, going into schedule(), and only then get a doorbell interrupt
signalling telling the kernel that there was an interrupt.

On a non-GICv4 machine, it means that interrupts injected by another
thread during the pooling will be evaluated with an outdated priority
mask, which can result in either a spurious wake-up or a missed
wake-up.

If it means introducing a new set of {pre,post}-poll arch-specific
hooks, so be it. But I don't think this change is acceptable as is.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
	Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
	Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
	Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
	Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
	Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
	Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
	Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/14] KVM: Don't block+unblock when halt-polling is successful
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 10:50:05 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <878rzlass2.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210925005528.1145584-8-seanjc@google.com>

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 01:55:21 +0100,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> 
> Invoke the arch hooks for block+unblock if and only if KVM actually
> attempts to block the vCPU.  The only non-nop implementation is on arm64,
> and if halt-polling is successful, there is no need for arm64 to put/load
> the vGIC as KVM hasn't relinquished control of the vCPU in any way.

This doesn't mean that there is no requirement for any state
change. The put/load on GICv4 is crucial for performance, and the VMCR
resync is a correctness requirement.

> 
> The primary motivation is to allow future cleanup to split out "block"
> from "halt", but this is also likely a small performance boost on arm64
> when halt-polling is successful.
> 
> Adjust the post-block path to update "cur" after unblocking, i.e. include
> vGIC load time in halt_wait_ns and halt_wait_hist, so that the behavior
> is consistent.  Moving just the pre-block arch hook would result in only
> the vGIC put latency being included in the halt_wait stats.  There is no
> obvious evidence that one way or the other is correct, so just ensure KVM
> is consistent.

This effectively reverts 07ab0f8d9a12 ("KVM: Call
kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking early into the blocking sequence"), which was a
huge gain on arm64, not to mention a correctness fix.

Without this, a GICv4 machine will always pay for the full poll
penalty, going into schedule(), and only then get a doorbell interrupt
signalling telling the kernel that there was an interrupt.

On a non-GICv4 machine, it means that interrupts injected by another
thread during the pooling will be evaluated with an outdated priority
mask, which can result in either a spurious wake-up or a missed
wake-up.

If it means introducing a new set of {pre,post}-poll arch-specific
hooks, so be it. But I don't think this change is acceptable as is.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
	Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
	Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com>,
	kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
	Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
	linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/14] KVM: Don't block+unblock when halt-polling is successful
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 09:50:05 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <878rzlass2.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210925005528.1145584-8-seanjc@google.com>

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 01:55:21 +0100,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> 
> Invoke the arch hooks for block+unblock if and only if KVM actually
> attempts to block the vCPU.  The only non-nop implementation is on arm64,
> and if halt-polling is successful, there is no need for arm64 to put/load
> the vGIC as KVM hasn't relinquished control of the vCPU in any way.

This doesn't mean that there is no requirement for any state
change. The put/load on GICv4 is crucial for performance, and the VMCR
resync is a correctness requirement.

> 
> The primary motivation is to allow future cleanup to split out "block"
> from "halt", but this is also likely a small performance boost on arm64
> when halt-polling is successful.
> 
> Adjust the post-block path to update "cur" after unblocking, i.e. include
> vGIC load time in halt_wait_ns and halt_wait_hist, so that the behavior
> is consistent.  Moving just the pre-block arch hook would result in only
> the vGIC put latency being included in the halt_wait stats.  There is no
> obvious evidence that one way or the other is correct, so just ensure KVM
> is consistent.

This effectively reverts 07ab0f8d9a12 ("KVM: Call
kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking early into the blocking sequence"), which was a
huge gain on arm64, not to mention a correctness fix.

Without this, a GICv4 machine will always pay for the full poll
penalty, going into schedule(), and only then get a doorbell interrupt
signalling telling the kernel that there was an interrupt.

On a non-GICv4 machine, it means that interrupts injected by another
thread during the pooling will be evaluated with an outdated priority
mask, which can result in either a spurious wake-up or a missed
wake-up.

If it means introducing a new set of {pre,post}-poll arch-specific
hooks, so be it. But I don't think this change is acceptable as is.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

  reply	other threads:[~2021-09-25  9:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 192+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-09-25  0:55 [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a new stat Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55 ` [PATCH 01/14] KVM: s390: Ensure kvm_arch_no_poll() is read once when blocking vCPU Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-27  6:54   ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-27  6:54     ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-27  6:54     ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-27  6:54     ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-25  0:55 ` [PATCH 02/14] KVM: Update halt-polling stats if and only if halt-polling was attempted Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-28 18:57   ` David Matlack
2021-09-28 18:57     ` David Matlack
2021-09-28 18:57     ` David Matlack
2021-09-28 18:57     ` David Matlack
2021-09-25  0:55 ` [PATCH 03/14] KVM: Refactor and document halt-polling stats update helper Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-28 19:01   ` David Matlack
2021-09-28 19:01     ` David Matlack
2021-09-28 19:01     ` David Matlack
2021-09-25  0:55 ` [PATCH 04/14] KVM: Reconcile discrepancies in halt-polling stats Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-28 21:26   ` David Matlack
2021-09-28 21:26     ` David Matlack
2021-09-28 21:26     ` David Matlack
2021-09-25  0:55 ` [PATCH 05/14] KVM: s390: Clear valid_wakeup in kvm_s390_handle_wait(), not in arch hook Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-27  6:58   ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-27  6:58     ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-27  6:58     ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-27  6:58     ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-25  0:55 ` [PATCH 06/14] KVM: Drop obsolete kvm_arch_vcpu_block_finish() Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-27  6:58   ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-27  6:58     ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-27  6:58     ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-27  6:58     ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-28 21:28   ` David Matlack
2021-09-28 21:28     ` David Matlack
2021-09-28 21:28     ` David Matlack
2021-09-25  0:55 ` [PATCH 07/14] KVM: Don't block+unblock when halt-polling is successful Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  9:50   ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2021-09-25  9:50     ` Marc Zyngier
2021-09-25  9:50     ` Marc Zyngier
2021-09-25  9:50     ` Marc Zyngier
2021-09-26  6:27     ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-09-26  6:27       ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-09-26  6:27       ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-09-26  6:27       ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-09-26  9:02       ` Marc Zyngier
2021-09-26  9:02         ` Marc Zyngier
2021-09-26  9:02         ` Marc Zyngier
2021-09-26  9:02         ` Marc Zyngier
2021-09-27 17:28         ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-27 17:28           ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-27 17:28           ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-27 17:28           ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-28  9:24           ` Marc Zyngier
2021-09-28  9:24             ` Marc Zyngier
2021-09-28  9:24             ` Marc Zyngier
2021-09-28  9:24             ` Marc Zyngier
2021-09-28 16:21             ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-28 16:21               ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-28 16:21               ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-28 16:21               ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-30  9:36               ` Marc Zyngier
2021-09-30  9:36                 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-09-30  9:36                 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-09-30  9:36                 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-09-25  0:55 ` [PATCH 08/14] KVM: x86: Tweak halt emulation helper names to free up kvm_vcpu_halt() Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-28 21:59   ` David Matlack
2021-09-28 21:59     ` David Matlack
2021-09-28 21:59     ` David Matlack
2021-09-25  0:55 ` [PATCH 09/14] KVM: Rename kvm_vcpu_block() => kvm_vcpu_halt() Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-27  7:06   ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-27  7:06     ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-27  7:06     ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-27  7:06     ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-28 22:01   ` David Matlack
2021-09-28 22:01     ` David Matlack
2021-09-28 22:01     ` David Matlack
2021-09-28 22:01     ` David Matlack
2021-09-25  0:55 ` [PATCH 10/14] KVM: Split out a kvm_vcpu_block() helper from kvm_vcpu_halt() Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-27  7:41   ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-27  7:41     ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-27  7:41     ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-27  7:41     ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-28 22:03   ` David Matlack
2021-09-28 22:03     ` David Matlack
2021-09-28 22:03     ` David Matlack
2021-09-25  0:55 ` [PATCH 11/14] KVM: stats: Add stat to detect if vcpu is currently blocking Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-28 22:04   ` David Matlack
2021-09-28 22:04     ` David Matlack
2021-09-28 22:04     ` David Matlack
2021-09-25  0:55 ` [PATCH 12/14] KVM: Don't redo ktime_get() when calculating halt-polling stop/deadline Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-28 22:08   ` David Matlack
2021-09-28 22:08     ` David Matlack
2021-09-28 22:08     ` David Matlack
2021-09-25  0:55 ` [PATCH 13/14] KVM: x86: Directly block (instead of "halting") UNINITIALIZED vCPUs Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-28 22:12   ` David Matlack
2021-09-28 22:12     ` David Matlack
2021-09-28 22:12     ` David Matlack
2021-09-25  0:55 ` [PATCH 14/14] KVM: x86: Invoke kvm_vcpu_block() directly for non-HALTED wait states Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-25  0:55   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-28 22:14   ` David Matlack
2021-09-28 22:14     ` David Matlack
2021-09-28 22:14     ` David Matlack
2021-09-28 22:14     ` David Matlack
2021-09-27  7:22 ` disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a new stat) Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-27  7:22   ` disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a new st Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-27  7:22   ` disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a new stat) Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-27  7:22   ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-27 14:59   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-27 14:59     ` disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a ne Sean Christopherson
2021-09-27 14:59     ` disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a new stat) Sean Christopherson
2021-09-27 14:59     ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-27 15:03     ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-09-27 15:03       ` disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a ne Paolo Bonzini
2021-09-27 15:03       ` disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a new stat) Paolo Bonzini
2021-09-27 15:03       ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-09-27 15:15       ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-27 15:15         ` disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a ne Sean Christopherson
2021-09-27 15:15         ` disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a new stat) Sean Christopherson
2021-09-27 15:15         ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-27 15:16       ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-27 15:16         ` disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a ne Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-27 15:16         ` disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a new stat) Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-27 15:16         ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-27 16:58         ` David Matlack
2021-09-27 16:58           ` disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a ne David Matlack
2021-09-27 16:58           ` disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a new stat) David Matlack
2021-09-27 16:58           ` David Matlack
2021-09-29  6:56           ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-29  6:56             ` disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a ne Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-29  6:56             ` disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a new stat) Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-29  6:56             ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-27 17:24         ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-09-27 17:24           ` disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a ne Paolo Bonzini
2021-09-27 17:24           ` disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a new stat) Paolo Bonzini
2021-09-27 17:24           ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-09-27 17:33           ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-27 17:33             ` disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a ne Sean Christopherson
2021-09-27 17:33             ` disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a new stat) Sean Christopherson
2021-09-27 17:33             ` Sean Christopherson
2022-11-15  3:28             ` wangyanan (Y)
2022-11-15  3:28               ` disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a ne wangyanan (Y)
2022-11-15  3:28               ` disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a new stat) wangyanan (Y)
2022-11-15  3:28               ` wangyanan (Y)
2022-11-16 17:19               ` David Matlack
2022-11-16 17:19                 ` disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a ne David Matlack
2022-11-16 17:19                 ` disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a new stat) David Matlack
2022-11-16 17:19                 ` David Matlack
2022-11-18  2:29                 ` wangyanan (Y)
2022-11-18  2:29                   ` disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a ne wangyanan (Y)
2022-11-18  2:29                   ` disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a new stat) wangyanan (Y)
2022-11-18  2:29                   ` wangyanan (Y)

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=878rzlass2.wl-maz@kernel.org \
    --to=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com \
    --cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=chenhuacai@kernel.org \
    --cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=dmatlack@google.com \
    --cc=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=imbrenda@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=jmattson@google.com \
    --cc=joro@8bytes.org \
    --cc=kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulus@ozlabs.org \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
    --cc=wanpengli@tencent.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.