linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] KVM: add spinlock optimization framework

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:   Tue, 8 Aug 2017 10:42:20 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     "Longpeng(Mike)" <longpeng2@...wei.com>, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        rkrcmar@...hat.com
Cc:     agraf@...e.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com, cohuck@...hat.com,
        christoffer.dall@...aro.org, marc.zyngier@....com,
        james.hogan@...tec.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, weidong.huang@...wei.com,
        arei.gonglei@...wei.com, wangxinxin.wang@...wei.com,
        longpeng.mike@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] KVM: add spinlock optimization framework


> +bool kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> +	return false;
> +}

why don't we need an EXPORT_SYMBOL here?

> +
>  /* Just ensure a guest exit from a particular CPU */
>  static void exit_vm_noop(void *info)
>  {
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> index 15252d7..e7720d2 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> @@ -2317,7 +2317,7 @@ static bool kvm_vcpu_eligible_for_directed_yield(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  #endif
>  }
>  
> -void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me)
> +void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me, bool me_in_kern)
>  {
>  	struct kvm *kvm = me->kvm;
>  	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> @@ -2348,6 +2348,8 @@ void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me)
>  				continue;
>  			if (swait_active(&vcpu->wq) && !kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable(vcpu))
>  				continue;
> +			if (me_in_kern && !kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel(vcpu))
> +				continue;


hm, does this patch compile? (me_in_kern)

I would even move this to an other patch.

Maybe even split into

a) introducing kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel() for all archs
b) modifying kvm_vcpu_on_spin(), passing the result from
kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel()
c) filling kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel() with life for different archs
(multiple patches)
d) pimping kvm_vcpu_on_spin()

>  			if (!kvm_vcpu_eligible_for_directed_yield(vcpu))
>  				continue;
>  
> 


-- 

Thanks,

David