linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] First batch of KVM changes for 4.1

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:	Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:55:06 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	gleb@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>, mtosatti@...hat.com,
	luto@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] First batch of KVM changes for 4.1

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:38:07PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
> 
> On 17/04/2015 12:36, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Now you make everybody pay for your crap, x86-64 paravirt or not. Keep
> > the cost by those who need it.
> > 
> > Please take it out, ASAP.
> 
> I'll just implement the static key.

Can you first show that:

preempt_out:
	int cpu = smp_processor_id();
	if (vcpu->cpu != cpu)
		vcpu->cpu = cpu;

preempt_in:
	int cpu = smp_processor_id();
	if (unlikely(vcpu->cpu != cpu))
		do_vcpu_migration_callback(cpu);

Is actually a measurable performance hit and we actually _need_ the
migration callback?

Also, it looks like you already do exactly this for other things, look
at:

	kvm_sched_in()
	  kvm_arch_vcpu_load()
	    if (unlikely(vcpu->cpu != cpu) ... )

So no, I don't believe for one second you need this.
--
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/