linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: x86: avoid redundant REQ

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4876bc4a-b72a-897e-84a7-c34c3f934705@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Dec 2016 15:32:45 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Roman Kagan <rkagan@...tuozzo.com>,
        Denis Plotnikov <dplotnikov@...tuozzo.com>, den@...tuozzo.com,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: x86: avoid redundant REQ_EVENT



On 15/12/2016 15:30, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 
> One useless round of KVM_REQ_EVENT is not going change nested
> performance by much and it is not the only thing we could improve wrt.
> TPR ... I would just leave it for now and take care of it when we
>  * don't to update PPR at all with APICv -- it is already correct
>  * drop the KVM_REQ_EVENT with flex priority, because lower TPR cannot
>    unmask an interrupt

I agree.  I still don't like the patch very much, because I feel like an
explicit state machine ("can KVM_REQ_EVENT do anything?") would be more
maintainable.  But if I don't come up with anything we'll go with this
patch.

Paolo