linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][KVM][retry 1] Add support for Pause Filtering to AMD SVM

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: <20090511143320.GE6175@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 11 May 2009 16:33:20 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Mark Langsdorf <mark.langsdorf@....com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][KVM][retry 1] Add support for Pause Filtering to AMD
	SVM

* Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> wrote:

>> I.e. this is a somewhat poor solution as far as scheduling goes. 
>> But i'm wondering what the CPU side does. Can REP-NOP really take 
>> thousands of cycles? If yes, under what circumstances?
>
> The guest is running rep-nop in a loop while trying to acquire a 
> spinlock.  The hardware detects this (most likely, repeated 
> rep-nop with the same rip) and exits.  We can program the loop 
> count; obviously if we're spinning for only a short while it's 
> better to keep spinning while hoping the lock will be released 
> soon.
>
> The idea is to detect that the guest is not making forward 
> progress and yield.  If I could tell the scheduler, you may charge 
> me a couple of milliseconds, I promise not to sue, that would be 
> ideal. [...]

Ok, with such a waiver, who could refuse?

This really needs a new kernel-internal scheduler API though, which 
does a lot of fancy things to do:

        se->vruntime += 1000000;

i.e. add 1 msec worth of nanoseconds to the task's timeline. (first 
remove it from the rbtree, then add it back, and nice-weight it as 
well) And only do it if there's other tasks running on this CPU or 
so.

_That_ would be pretty efficient, and would do the right thing when 
two (or more) vcpus run on the same CPU, and it would also do the 
right thing if there are repeated VM-exits due to pause filtering.

Please dont even think about using yield for this though - that will 
just add a huge hit to this task and wont result in any sane 
behavior - and yield is bound to some historic user-space behavior 
as well.

A gradual and linear back-off from the current timeline is more of a 
fair negotiation process between vcpus and results in more or less 
sane (and fair) scheduling, and no unnecessary looping.

You could even do an exponential backoff up to a limit of 1-10 msecs 
or so, starting at 100 usecs.

	Ingo
--
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/