linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] Paravirtual spinlocks

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:51:42 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Xen devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Christoph Lameter <clameter@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Friebel <thomas.friebel@....com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] Paravirtual spinlocks

On Tuesday 08 July 2008 10:29, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 July 2008 05:07:49 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > At the most recent Xen Summit, Thomas Friebel presented a paper
> > ("Preventing Guests from Spinning Around",
> > http://xen.org/files/xensummitboston08/LHP.pdf) investigating the
> > interactions between spinlocks and virtual machines.  Specifically, he
> > looked at what happens when a lock-holding VCPU gets involuntarily
> > preempted.
>
> I find it interesting that gang scheduling the guest was not suggested as
> an obvious solution.
>
> Anyway, concept looks fine; lguest's solution is more elegant of course :)

What's lguest's solution?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/