linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] kvm: Handle undercommitted guest case 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: <5064272F.8070805@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:15:11 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
CC:	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Srikar <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Jiannan Ouyang <ouyang@...pitt.edu>,
	chegu vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>,
	"Andrew M. Theurer" <habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] kvm: Handle undercommitted guest case in PLE
 handler

On 09/27/2012 12:08 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:04:58PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 09/27/2012 11:58 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> > 
>> >> >  
>> >> >> btw, we can have secondary effects.  A vcpu can be waiting for a lock in
>> >> >> the host kernel, or for a host page fault.  There's no point in boosting
>> >> >> anything for that.  Or a vcpu in userspace can be waiting for a lock
>> >> >> that is held by another thread, which has been preempted. 
>> >> > Do you mean userspace spinlock? Because otherwise task that's waits on
>> >> > a kernel lock will sleep in the kernel.
>> >> 
>> >> I meant a kernel mutex.
>> >> 
>> >> vcpu 0: take guest spinlock
>> >> vcpu 0: vmexit
>> >> vcpu 0: spin_lock(some_lock)
>> >> vcpu 1: take same guest spinlock
>> >> vcpu 1: PLE vmexit
>> >> vcpu 1: wtf?
>> >> 
>> >> Waiting on a host kernel spinlock is not too bad because we expect to be
>> >> out shortly.  Waiting on a host kernel mutex can be a lot worse.
>> >> 
>> > We can't do much about it without PV spinlock since there is not
>> > information about what vcpu holds which guest spinlock, no?
>> 
>> It doesn't help.  If the lock holder is waiting for another lock in the
>> host kernel, boosting it doesn't help even if we know who it is.  We
>> need to boost the real lock holder, but we have no idea who it is (and
>> even if we did, we often can't do anything about it).
>> 
> Without PV lock we will boost random preempted vcpu instead of going to
> sleep in the situation you described.

True.  In theory boosting a random vcpu shouldn't have any negative
effects though.  Right now the problem is that the boosting itself is
expensive.


-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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/