linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] kvm hypervisor : Add hypercalls to support pv-ticketlock

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]

Message-ID: <20110121140208.GA13609@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:32:08 +0530
From:	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Linux Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, suzuki@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] kvm hypervisor : Add hypercalls to support
 pv-ticketlock

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 09:56:27AM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> >  The key here is not to
> > sleep when waiting for locks (as implemented by current patch-series, which can 
> > put other VMs at an advantage by giving them more time than they are entitled 
> > to)
> 
> Why?  If a VCPU can't make progress because its waiting for some
> resource, then why not schedule something else instead?

In the process, "something else" can get more share of cpu resource than its 
entitled to and that's where I was bit concerned. I guess one could
employ hard-limits to cap "something else's" bandwidth where it is of real 
concern (like clouds).

> Presumably when
> the VCPU does become runnable, the scheduler will credit its previous
> blocked state and let it run in preference to something else.

which may not be sufficient for it to gain back bandwidth lost while blocked
(speaking of mainline scheduler atleast).

> > Is there a way we can dynamically expand the size of lock only upon contention
> > to include additional information like owning vcpu? Have the lock point to a
> > per-cpu area upon contention where additional details can be stored perhaps?
> 
> As soon as you add a pointer to the lock, you're increasing its size. 

I didn't really mean to expand size statically. Rather have some bits of the 
lock word store pointer to a per-cpu area when there is contention (somewhat 
similar to how bits of rt_mutex.owner are used). I haven't thought thr' this in
detail to see if that is possible though.

- vatsa
--
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/