linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving undercommit,overcommit scenarios 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: <5065B00A.4050107@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 28 Sep 2012 19:41:22 +0530
From:	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...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>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@...il.com>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving undercommit,overcommit scenarios
 in PLE handler

On 09/28/2012 05:10 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 11:08 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> On 09/27/2012 05:33 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> On 09/27/2012 01:23 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>>>>
[...]
>>>
>>> Also there may be a lot of false positives (deferred preemptions even
>>> when there is no contention).
>
> It will be interesting to see how this behaves with a very high lock
> activity in a guest.  Once the scheduler defers preemption, is it for a
> fixed amount of time, or does it know to cut the deferral short as soon
> as the lock depth is reduced [by x]?

Design/protocol that Vatsa, had in mind was something like this:

- scheduler does not give a vcpu holding lock forever, it may give one
chance that would give only few ticks. In addition to giving chance,
scheduler also sets some indication that he has been given chance.

- vcpu once he release (all) the lock(s), if it had given chance,
it should clear that (ACK), and relinquish the cpu.




--
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/