linux-kernel - Re: [Alacrityvm-devel] [KVM PATCH v2 1/2] KVM: export lockless GSI attribute

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: <4AE81710.1080103@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:04:00 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>
CC:	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Alacrityvm-devel] [KVM PATCH v2 1/2] KVM: export lockless GSI
 attribute

On 10/26/2009 05:38 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>>> Instead of a lockless attribute, how about a ->set_atomic() method.  For
>>> msi this can be the same as ->set(), for non-msi it can be a function
>>> that schedules the work (which will eventually call ->set()).
>>>
>>> The benefit is that we make a decision only once, when preparing the
>>> routing entry, and install that decision in the routing entry instead of
>>> making it again and again later.
>>>        
>> Yeah, I like this idea.  I think we can also get rid of the custom
>> workqueue if we do this as well, TBD.
>>      
> So I looked into this.  It isn't straight forward because you need to
> retain some kind of state across the deferment on a per-request basis
> (not per-GSI).  Today, this state is neatly tracked into the irqfd
> object itself (e.g. it knows to toggle the GSI).
>    

Yes, and it also contains the work_struct.

What if we make the work_struct (and any additional state) part of the 
set_atomic() argument list?  Does it simplify things?

> So while generalizing this perhaps makes sense at some point, especially
> if irqfd-like interfaces get added, it probably doesn't make a ton of
> sense to expend energy on it ATM.  It is basically a generalization of
> the irqfd deferrment code.  Lets just wait until we have a user beyond
> irqfd for now.  Sound acceptable?
>    

I'll look at v3, but would really like to disentangle this.

> In the meantime, I found a bug in the irq_routing code, so I will submit
> a v3 with this fix, as well as a few other things I improved in the v2
> series.
>
>    


-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/