On 24/09/2015 13:06, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Am 18.09.2015 um 13:29 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>>
>>
>> On 18/09/2015 12:54, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
-/* halt polling only reduces halt latency by 5-7 us, 500us is enough */
-static unsigned int halt_poll_ns = 50;
+/*
Am 18.09.2015 um 13:29 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>
>
> On 18/09/2015 12:54, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>> -/* halt polling only reduces halt latency by 5-7 us, 500us is enough */
>>> -static unsigned int halt_poll_ns = 50;
>>> +/* Architectures should define their poll value according to the
Am 18.09.2015 um 12:34 schrieb David Hildenbrand:
> We observed some performance degradation on s390x with dynamic
> halt polling. Until we can provide a proper fix, let's enable
> halt_poll_ns as default only for supported architectures.
>
> Architectures are now free to set their own
Am 18.09.2015 um 13:29 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>
>
> On 18/09/2015 12:54, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>> -/* halt polling only reduces halt latency by 5-7 us, 500us is enough */
>>> -static unsigned int halt_poll_ns = 50;
>>> +/* Architectures should define their poll value according to the
On 18/09/2015 12:54, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > -/* halt polling only reduces halt latency by 5-7 us, 500us is enough */
> > -static unsigned int halt_poll_ns = 50;
> > +/* Architectures should define their poll value according to the halt
> > latency */
> > +static unsigned int
We observed some performance degradation on s390x with dynamic
halt polling. Until we can provide a proper fix, let's enable
halt_poll_ns as default only for supported architectures.
Architectures are now free to set their own halt_poll_ns
default value.
Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand
