linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] virtio: use mandatory barriers for remote processor vdevs

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: <1322867384.11728.20.camel@pasglop>
Date:	Sat, 03 Dec 2011 10:09:44 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
Cc:	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC] virtio: use mandatory barriers for remote processor vdevs

On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 14:31 +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> Virtio is using memory barriers to control the ordering of
> references to the vrings on SMP systems. When the guest is compiled
> with SMP support, virtio is only using SMP barriers in order to
> avoid incurring the overhead involved with mandatory barriers.
> 
> Lately, though, virtio is being increasingly used with inter-processor
> communication scenarios too, which involve running two (separate)
> instances of operating systems on two (separate) processors, each of
> which might either be UP or SMP.
> 
> To control the ordering of memory references when the vrings are shared
> between two external processors, we must always use mandatory barriers.
> 
> A trivial, albeit sub-optimal, solution would be to simply revert
> commit d57ed95 "virtio: use smp_XX barriers on SMP". Obviously, though,
> that's going to have a negative impact on performance of SMP-based
> virtualization use cases.

Have you measured the impact of using normal barriers (non-SMP ones)
like we use on normal HW drivers unconditionally ?

IE. If the difference is small enough I'd say just go for it and avoid
the bloat.

Ben.


--
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/