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: <CAK=WgbYgbShjuFozOQh5Zk+Dh7jymrvtSiVFHzDLB4Nk0zMNaw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 3 Dec 2011 08:01:09 +0200
From:	Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
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 Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
<benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
> 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.

I agree.

MST wanted to give this a try this week. If all goes well and there's
no unreasonable regression, we'd just switch to mandatory barriers.

Ohad.
--
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/