linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving directed yield in PLE handler

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: <1342092250.15597.1.camel@pasglop>
Date:	Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:24:10 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc:	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	S390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
	Carsten Otte <cotte@...ibm.com>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	chegu vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>,
	"Andrew M. Theurer" <habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 <x86@...nel.org>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>, linux390@...ibm.com,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@...il.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>,
	Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving directed yield in PLE handler

On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 11:12 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 07/12/2012 05:17 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >> ARM doesn't have an instruction for cpu_relax(), so it can't intercept
> >> it.  Given ppc's dislike of overcommit, and the way it implements
> >> cpu_relax() by adjusting hw thread priority, I'm guessing it doesn't
> >> intercept those either, but I'm copying the ppc people in case I'm
> >> wrong.  So it's s390 and x86.
> > 
> > No but our spinlocks call __spin_yield()  (or __rw_yield) which does
> > some paravirt tricks already.
> > 
> > We check if the holder is currently running, and if not, we call the
> > H_CONFER hypercall which can be used to "give" our time slice to the
> > holder.
> > 
> > Our implementation of H_CONFER in KVM is currently a nop though.
> 
> Okay, so you can join the party.  See yield_to() and kvm_vcpu_on_spin().

Thanks ! I'll have a look eventually :-)

Cheers,
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/