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:	Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:13:29 +0100
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	kvm@...r.kernel.org, Yuki Shibuya <shibuya.yk@...s.nec.co.jp>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/14] KVM: x86: change PIT discard tick policy



On 17/02/2016 20:14, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> Discard policy uses ack_notifiers to prevent injection of PIT interrupts
> before EOI from the last one.
> 
> This patch changes the policy to always try to deliver the interrupt,
> which makes a difference when its vector is in ISR.
> Old implementation would drop the interrupt, but proposed one injects to
> IRR, like real hardware would.

This seems like what libvirt calls the "merge" policy:

    Merge the missed tick(s) into one tick and inject. The guest time
    may be delayed, depending on how the OS reacts to the merging of
    ticks

where the merged tick is the one placed into IRR.  Unlike discard,
"merge" can starve the guest through an interrupt storm.

Rik, I think you originally worked on the missed tick policies in Xen.
Is the above correct?

If so, do you recall what would be the reason to use the merge policy
instead of the discard policy?

Paolo

Powered by blists - more mailing lists