linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 3/4] Paravirtualized spinlock implementation for KVM guests

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:	Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:53:03 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	npiggin@...e.de, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, bharata@...ibm.com,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/4] Paravirtualized spinlock implementation for KVM
 guests

  On 07/26/2010 09:15 AM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> Paravirtual spinlock implementation for KVM guests, based heavily on Xen guest's
> spinlock implementation.
>
> +static void kvm_spin_unlock(struct arch_spinlock *lock)
> +{
> +	struct kvm_spinlock *sl = (struct kvm_spinlock *)lock;
> +
> +	ADD_STATS(released, 1);
> +
> +	smp_wmb();		/* make sure no writes get moved after unlock */
> +	sl->lock = 0;		/* release lock */
> +}

Wait, no wakeup?

So it is a yield, not a sleep.  I'm worried it could seriously impact 
fairness when one non-contending guest (or non-pv) is overcommitted 
together with a spin-yield guest.

-- 
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/