linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 2/2] xen: enable vnuma for PV guest

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, 19 Nov 2013 15:55:06 +0000
From:	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
To:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC:	Elena Ufimtseva <ufimtseva@...il.com>,
	<xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>, <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	<tglx@...utronix.de>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <hpa@...or.com>,
	<x86@...nel.org>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	<tangchen@...fujitsu.com>, <wency@...fujitsu.com>,
	<ian.campbell@...rix.com>, <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	<mukesh.rathor@...cle.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 2/2] xen: enable vnuma for PV guest

On 19/11/13 15:19, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 02:56:41PM +0000, David Vrabel wrote:
>> The relevant bits in dummy_numa_init are in the error path of
>> xen_numa_init().
> 
> That seems the wrong place to do it. The top layer calls 
> in each of the numa implementations and then falls back to
> the dummy.

Think of it as not the dummy, but Xen setting the NUMA configuration up
with only a single node.

The useful bits in dummy_numa_init() are two calls to standard functions
for use by *_numa_init() calls so it just seems easier all round to just
call then directly than add a dependancy on dummy_numa_init().

> Calling from within the implementation on something that is eventually
> done on the upper level already is not right.

>From the point of view of the caller, it does the right thing.  NUMA is
setup.

>> I do think this approach (using the provided API to setup the single
>> (dummy) node), is preferable to calling dummy_numa_init().
> 
> Doesn't it do the same thing? And also what about if you the user
> provides fakenuma?

I don't know what "fakenuma" is refering to.

>> If I thought the hypervisor ABI was finalized, I'd be happy with this
>> series as-is -- the remaining issues are superficial.
> 
> That reads to me as an Ack, but I know you like to have it stated
> explicitly - so could you state the proper tag please?

"If I thought the hypervisor ABI was finalized..." is a pretty big "if"
so I have deliberately /not/ given an ack or a reviewed tag but I've
tried to be clear than I think the Linux side is now good enough (except
for any changes for any updates to the hypervisor ABI).

David
--
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/