linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] directed yield for Pause Loop Exiting

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4D0651BB.9040609@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 Dec 2010 12:02:51 -0500
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Anthony Liguori <aliguori@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] directed yield for Pause Loop Exiting

On 12/11/2010 08:57 AM, Balbir Singh wrote:

> If the vpcu holding the lock runs more and capped, the timeslice
> transfer is a heuristic that will not help.

That indicates you really need the cap to be per guest, and
not per VCPU.

Having one VCPU spin on a lock (and achieve nothing), because
the other one cannot give up the lock due to hitting its CPU
cap could lead to showstoppingly bad performance.

-- 
All rights reversed
--
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/