| 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, 1 Jun 2010 19:27:30 +0200 From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...e.hu, npiggin@...e.de, tglx@...utronix.de, mtosatti@...hat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] use unfair spinlock when running on hypervisor. On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 07:52:28PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > We are running everything on NUMA (since all modern machines are now NUMA). > At what scale do the issues become observable? On Intel platforms it's visible starting with 4 sockets. > >>> I understand that reason and do not propose to get back to old spinlock >>> on physical HW! But with virtualization performance hit is unbearable. >>> >> Extreme unfairness can be unbearable too. >> > > Well, the question is what happens first. In our experience, vcpu > overcommit is a lot more painful. People will never see the NUMA > unfairness issue if they can't use kvm due to the vcpu overcommit problem. You really have to address both, if you don't fix them both users will eventually into one of them and be unhappy. -Andi -- ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only. -- 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