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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:37:51 -0400 From: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com> To: LAPLACE Cyprien <cyprien.laplace@...ngo-systems.com> CC: virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> Subject: Re: SMP lockup in virtualized environment LAPLACE Cyprien wrote: > An example: in kernel/pid.c:alloc_pid(), if one of the guest CPUs is > descheduled when holding the pidmap_lock, what happens to the other > guest CPUs who want to alloc/free pids ? Are they blocked too ? Yup. This is where it's really nice to have directed yields, where you tell the hypervisor to give your physical CPU time to the vcpu that's holding the lock you're blocking on. I know s390 can do this. Perhaps it's something worth generalizing in paravirt_ops? -- Chris - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists