linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] KVM: userspace interface

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]

Message-ID: <45387C77.4050106@qumranet.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:36:23 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
To:	Anthony Liguori <aliguori@...ibm.com>
CC:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	John Stoffel <john@...ffel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] KVM: userspace interface

Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>
>>> ioctls are probably wrong here though.  Ideally, you would want to 
>>> be able to support an SMP guest.  This means you need to have two 
>>> virtual processors executing in kernel space.  If you use ioctls, it 
>>> forces you to have two separate threads in userspace.  This would be 
>>> hard for something like QEMU which is currently single threaded (and 
>>> not at all thread safe).
>>>
>>
>> Since we're using the Linux scheduler, we need a task per virtual cpu 
>> anyway, so a thread per vcpu is not a problem.
>>
>
> You miss my point I think.  Using ioctls *requires* a thread per-vcpu 
> in userspace.  This is unnecessary since you could simply provide a 
> char-device based read/write interface.  You could then multiplex 
> events and poll.
>

Yes, ioctl()s require userspace threads, but that's okay, because 
they're free for us, since we need a kernel thread for each vcpu.

On the other hand, a single device model thread polling the vcpus is 
guaranteed to be on the wrong physical cpu for half of the time 
(assuming 2 cpus and 2 vcpus), requiring IPIs and suspending a vcpu in 
order to run.

> If for nothing else, you have to be able to run timers in userspace 
> and interrupt the kernel execution (to signal DMA completion for 
> instance).  Even in the UP case, this gets ugly quickly.
>

The timers aren't pretty (we use signals), yes.  But avoiding the extra 
thread is critical for performance IMO.

> read/write is really just a much cleaner interface for anything that 
> has blocking semantics.
>

Ah, but scheduling a vcpu doesn't just block, it consumes the physical cpu.

All other uses of read() yield the cpu apart from setup and copying of 
the data.


-- 
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.

-
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/