[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140820160137.GB20453@potion.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 18:01:38 +0200
From: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>,
Raghavendra KT <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vinod Chegu <chegu_vinod@...com>, Hui-Zhi <hui-zhi.zhao@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] KVM: VMX: automatic PLE window maximum
2014-08-20 17:34+0200, Paolo Bonzini:
> Il 20/08/2014 17:31, Radim Krčmář ha scritto:
> > Btw. without extra code, we are still going to overflow on races when
> > changing PW_grow, should they be covered as well?
>
> You mean because there is no spinlock or similar protecting the changes?
> I guess you could use a seqlock.
Yes, for example between a modification of ple_window
new = min(old, PW_actual_max) * PW_grow
which gets compiled into something like this:
1) tmp = min(old, PW_actual_max)
2) new = tmp * PW_grow
and a write to increase PW_grow
3) PW_actual_max = min(PW_max / new_PW_grow, PW_actual_max)
4) PW_grow = new_PW_grow
5) PW_actual_max = PW_max / new_PW_grow
3 and 4 can exectute between 1 and 2, which could overflow.
I don't think they are important enough to warrant a significant
performance hit of locking.
Or even more checks that would prevent it in a lockless way.
(I'd just see that the result is set to something legal and also drop
line 3, because it does not help things that much.)
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists