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  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, 28 Oct 2009 09:19:54 -0400
From:	Gregory Haskins <>
To:	Avi Kivity <>
CC:	Gregory Haskins <>,,,
Subject: Re: [Alacrityvm-devel] [KVM PATCH v2 1/2] KVM: export lockless GSI

Avi Kivity wrote:
> 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?

Hmmm, that might not, but we could do a kmalloc(GFP_ATOMIC) for such
parameters.  Considering this is just a safety net, perhaps this would
work fine.

>> 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.

Ok, I will see what I can do.  I need at least a v4 to get rid of the
dependency on the now defunct v3:1/3 patch per yesterdays discussion.

Kind Regards,

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (268 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists