linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] KVM: x86: Use vector-hashing to deliver lowest-priority interrupts

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]

Date:	Fri, 29 Jan 2016 09:17:42 +0100
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	"Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@...el.com>,
	Radim Krcmár <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] KVM: x86: Use vector-hashing to deliver
 lowest-priority interrupts



On 28/01/2016 02:51, Wu, Feng wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Radim Krčmář [mailto:rkrcmar@...hat.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 2:59 AM
>> To: Wu, Feng <feng.wu@...el.com>
>> Cc: pbonzini@...hat.com; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; kvm@...r.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] KVM: x86: Use vector-hashing to deliver lowest-
>> priority interrupts
>>
>> 2016-01-25 16:53+0800, Feng Wu:
>>> Use vector-hashing to deliver lowest-priority interrupts, As an
>>> example, modern Intel CPUs in server platform use this method to
>>> handle lowest-priority interrupts.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Feng Wu <feng.wu@...el.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> With any proposed resolution of BUG_ON in kvm_vector_to_index,
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>>> @@ -123,6 +123,9 @@ module_param(tsc_tolerance_ppm, uint, S_IRUGO |
>> S_IWUSR);
>>> +bool __read_mostly vector_hashing = true;
>>
>> (Module param can be static.)
>>
>>> +module_param(vector_hashing, bool, S_IRUGO);
> 
> Thanks a lot for your comments, Radim & Paolo! 
> 
> Paolo, given that the only two comments above, do I need to send v5? Or
> you can handle it while merging them? I am fine with both methods.

It's fine, I'm merging it.

Paolo