linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] PF: Provide additional direct page notification

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: <20130710104253.GQ24941@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:42:53 +0300
From:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
To:	Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>
Cc:	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
	Dominik Dingel <dingel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
	Xiantao Zhang <xiantao.zhang@...el.com>,
	Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] PF: Provide additional direct page notification

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:39:01PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> 
> On 09.07.2013, at 18:01, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> 
> > On 09/07/13 15:56, Dominik Dingel wrote:
> >> By setting a Kconfig option, the architecture can control when
> >> guest notifications will be presented by the apf backend.
> >> So there is the default batch mechanism, working as before, where the vcpu thread
> >> should pull in this information. On the other hand there is now the direct
> >> mechanism, this will directly push the information to the guest.
> >> 
> >> Still the vcpu thread should call check_completion to cleanup leftovers,
> >> that leaves most of the common code untouched.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Dominik Dingel <dingel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > 
> > Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com> 
> > for the "why". We want to use the existing architectured interface.
> 
> Shouldn't this be a runtime option?
> 
Why? What is the advantage of using sync delivery when HW can do it
async?

--
			Gleb.
--
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/