linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC V4 3/3] kvm: Choose better candidate for directed yield

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: <50052BB5.2040909@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:39:09 +0530
From:	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Srikar <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	S390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
	Carsten Otte <cotte@...ibm.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V4 3/3] kvm: Choose better candidate for directed
 yield

On 07/17/2012 01:59 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 07/16/2012 07:10 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> On 07/16/2012 06:07 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>>>> +{
>>>> +    bool eligible;
>>>> +
>>>> +    eligible = !vcpu->ple.cpu_relax_intercepted ||
>>>> +            (vcpu->ple.cpu_relax_intercepted&&
>>>> +             vcpu->ple.dy_eligible);
>>>> +
>>>> +    if (vcpu->ple.cpu_relax_intercepted)
>>>> +        vcpu->ple.dy_eligible = !vcpu->ple.dy_eligible;
>>>
>>> Probably should assign 'true', since the previous value is essentially
>>> random.
>>
>> I suspect the intended purpose of this conditional is to
>> flip the eligibility of a vcpu for being selected as a
>> direct yield target.
>>
>> In other words, that bit of the code is correct.
>
> If vcpu A is in a long spin loop and is preempted away, and vcpu B dips
> several times in kvm_vcpu_on_spin(), then it will act as intended.

Yes, true.

But
> if vcpu A is spinning for x% of its time and processing on the other,
> then vcpu B will flip its dy_eligible for those x%, and not flip it when
> it's processing.  I don't understand how this is useful.

Suppose A is doing really good job and and has not done pause loop
exit, we will not touch it's dy_eligible flag. Also dy_eligible flag
will not prevent B doing yield_to to A.

Suppose A has started spinning in the beginning itself, it will do pause 
loop exit if it crosses threshold, and we will now start toggling
dy_eligible.

Was that you were referring?

And it seems we may still have to set dy_eligible flag to false at the 
beginning of vcpu_on_spin along with cpu_relax_intercepted = true, like 
below, so that we do not have spill-over status from previous PL exits.

vcpu_on_spin()
{
  cpu_relax_intercepted = true;
  dy_eligible = false;
.
.
.

cpu_relax_intercepted = false;
}

Let me know if that addresses your concern.

>
> I guess this is an attempt to impose fairness on yielding, and it makes
> sense to do this, but I don't know if this is the best way to achieve it.
>

--
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/