linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 1/1] locking/qspinlock/x86: Avoid test-and-set when PV

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Thu, 2 Nov 2017 14:12:13 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Eduardo Valentin <eduval@...zon.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     rkrcmar@...hat.com, Matt Wilson <msw@...zon.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Jan H . Schoenherr" <jschoenh@...zon.de>,
        Anthony Liguori <aliguori@...zon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/1] locking/qspinlock/x86: Avoid test-and-set when
 PV_DEDICATED is set

On 11/02/2017 02:08 PM, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 06:56:46PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 02/11/2017 18:45, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
>>> Currently, the existing qspinlock implementation will fallback to
>>> test-and-set if the hypervisor has not set the PV_UNHALT flag.
>>>
>>> This patch gives the opportunity to guest kernels to select
>>> between test-and-set and the regular queueu fair lock implementation
>>> based on the PV_DEDICATED KVM feature flag. When the PV_DEDICATED
>>> flag is not set, the code will still fall back to test-and-set,
>>> but when the PV_DEDICATED flag is set, the code will use
>>> the regular queue spinlock implementation.
>> Have you seen Waiman's series that lets you specify this on the guest
>> command line instead?  Would this be acceptable for your use case?
>>
> No, can you please share a link to it? is it already merged to tip/master?

See https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/1/655

Cheers,
Longman