linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] context_tracking,x86: remove extraneous irq disable & enable from context tracking on syscall entry

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: <5543C05E.9040209@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 01 May 2015 14:05:18 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, williams@...hat.com,
	Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, fweisbec@...hat.com,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] context_tracking,x86: remove extraneous irq disable
 & enable from context tracking on syscall entry

On 05/01/2015 12:34 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
>>> I can understand people running hard-RT workloads not wanting to 
>>> see the overhead of a timer tick or a scheduler tick with variable 
>>> (and occasionally heavy) work done in IRQ context, but the jitter 
>>> caused by a single trivial IPI with constant work should be very, 
>>> very low and constant.
>>
>> Not if the realtime workload is running inside a KVM guest.
> 
> I don't buy this:
> 
>> At that point an IPI, either on the host or in the guest, involves a 
>> full VMEXIT & VMENTER cycle.
> 
> So a full VMEXIT/VMENTER costs how much, 2000 cycles? That's around 1 
> usec on recent hardware, and I bet it will get better with time.
> 
> I'm not aware of any hard-RT workload that cannot take 1 usec 
> latencies.

Now think about doing this kind of IPI from inside a guest,
to another VCPU on the same guest.

Now you are looking at VMEXIT/VMENTER on the first VCPU,
plus the cost of the IPI on the host, plus the cost of
the emulation layer, plus VMEXIT/VMENTER on the second
VCPU to trigger the IPI work, and possibly a second
VMEXIT/VMENTER for IPI completion.

I suspect it would be better to do RCU callback offload
in some other way.

-- 
All rights reversed
--
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/