linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/10] x86: convert to generic helpers for IPI function calls

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:	Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:35:42 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
	npiggin@...e.de, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/10] x86: convert to generic helpers for IPI function  calls

On Tue, Apr 29 2008, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> >-int xen_smp_call_function_mask(cpumask_t mask, void (*func)(void *),
> >-			       void *info, int wait)
> >  
> [...]
> >-	/* Send a message to other CPUs and wait for them to respond */
> >-	xen_send_IPI_mask(mask, XEN_CALL_FUNCTION_VECTOR);
> >-
> >-	/* Make sure other vcpus get a chance to run if they need to. */
> >-	yield = false;
> >-	for_each_cpu_mask(cpu, mask)
> >-		if (xen_vcpu_stolen(cpu))
> >-			yield = true;
> >-
> >-	if (yield)
> >-		HYPERVISOR_sched_op(SCHEDOP_yield, 0);
> >  
> 
> I added this to deal with the case where you're sending an IPI to 
> another VCPU which isn't currently running on a real cpu.  In this case 
> you could end up spinning while the other VCPU is waiting for a real CPU 
> to run on.  (Basically the same problem that spinlocks have in a virtual 
> environment.)
> 
> However, this is at best a partial solution to the problem, and I never 
> benchmarked if it really makes a difference.  Since any other virtual 
> environment would have the same problem, its best if we can solve it 
> generically.  (Of course a synchronous single-target cross-cpu call is a 
> simple cross-cpu rpc, which could be implemented very efficiently in the 
> host/hypervisor by simply doing a vcpu context switch...)

So, what would your advice be? Seems safe enough to ignore for now and
attack it if it becomes a real problem.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/