linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] use unfair spinlock when running on hypervisor.

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:	Tue, 01 Jun 2010 13:39:14 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
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, 01 Jun 2010 19:52:28 +0300, Avi Kivity said:
> On 06/01/2010 07:38 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >>> Your new code would starve again, right?
> > Try it on a NUMA system with unfair memory.

> We are running everything on NUMA (since all modern machines are now 
> NUMA).  At what scale do the issues become observable?

My 6-month-old laptop is NUMA? Comes as a surprise to me, and to the
perfectly-running NUMA=n kernel I'm running.

Or did you mean a less broad phrase than "all modern machines"?


Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped