linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] VFIO: Add a parameter to force nonthread IRQ

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: <563113E9.2040608@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 Oct 2015 19:28:57 +0100
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Yunhong Jiang <yunhong.jiang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] VFIO: Add a parameter to force nonthread IRQ



On 28/10/2015 18:50, Yunhong Jiang wrote:
> > No, I don't think you can use raw_spinlock there.  The problem is not
> > just eventfd_signal, it is especially wake_up_locked_poll.  You cannot
> > convert the whole workqueue infrastructure to use raw_spinlock.
> 
> You mean the waitqueue, instead of workqueue, right?

Yes.

> One choice is to change 
> the eventfd to use simple wait queue, which is raw_spinlock. But use simple 
> waitqueue on eventfd may in fact impact real time latency if not in this 
> scenario.

Userspace can put an arbitrary amount of tasks on the work queue, so
it's not possible to use a simple wait queue.  It would also touch
multiple subsystems, so it's much better to bypass the eventfd completely.

Paolo
--
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/