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  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, 2 Nov 2017 11:43:11 -0700
From:   Eduardo Valentin <eduval@...zon.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
CC:     Eduardo Valentin <eduval@...zon.com>, <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Matt Wilson <msw@...zon.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, <x86@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Jan H . Schoenherr" <jschoenh@...zon.de>,
        Anthony Liguori <aliguori@...zon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/1] locking/qspinlock/x86: Avoid test-and-set when
 PV_DEDICATED is set

On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 07:24:16PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 02/11/2017 19:08, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 06:56:46PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> On 02/11/2017 18:45, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> >>> Currently, the existing qspinlock implementation will fallback to
> >>> test-and-set if the hypervisor has not set the PV_UNHALT flag.
> >>>
> >>> This patch gives the opportunity to guest kernels to select
> >>> between test-and-set and the regular queueu fair lock implementation
> >>> based on the PV_DEDICATED KVM feature flag. When the PV_DEDICATED
> >>> flag is not set, the code will still fall back to test-and-set,
> >>> but when the PV_DEDICATED flag is set, the code will use
> >>> the regular queue spinlock implementation.
> >>
> >> Have you seen Waiman's series that lets you specify this on the guest
> >> command line instead?  Would this be acceptable for your use case?
> > 
> > No, can you please share a link to it? is it already merged to tip/master?
> 
> [PATCH-tip v2 0/2] x86/paravirt: Enable users to choose PV lock type
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/1/655
> 
> >> (In other words, is there a difference for you between making the host
> >> vs. guest administrator toggle the feature?  "@amazon.com" means you are
> >> the host admin, how would you use it?)
> > 
> > The way I think of this is this is a flag set by host side so the
> > guest adapts accordingly.
> > 
> > If the admin in guest side wants to ignore what the host is
> > flagging, that is a different story.
> 
> Okay, this makes sense.  But perhaps it should be a separate CPUID leaf,
> such as "configuration hints", rather than properly a feature.

Oh OK, you don't think this starts to deviate from the feature concept.
But would the PV_UNHALT also go to "configuration hints" bucket?

Another way to see this is we have three locking feature options to select from,
so we need at least two bits here.

> 
> Paolo

-- 
All the best,
Eduardo Valentin

Powered by blists - more mailing lists