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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 18:31:58 +0100 From: Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@...hat.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: Pankaj Gupta <pagupta@...hat.com>, Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>, Eduardo Valentin <eduval@...zon.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...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>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, kvm <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: [PATCHv3 1/1] locking/qspinlock/x86: Avoid test-and-set when PV_DEDICATED is set 2017-11-09 18:12+0100, Peter Zijlstra: > On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 05:45:23PM +0100, Radim Krcmar wrote: > > 2017-11-09 17:17+0100, Peter Zijlstra: > > > On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 05:05:36PM +0100, Radim Krcmar wrote: > > > > 2017-11-09 10:53-0500, Pankaj Gupta: > > > > > 2] PV TLB should also behave as per option PV_DEDICATED for better performance. > > > > > > > > Right, > > > > > > Shouldn't KVM do flush_tlb_other() in any case? Not sure how > > > PV_DEDICATED can help with that. > > > > It will, the suggestion was based on recent extension of the > > flush_tlb_others implementaion, https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/8/1146. > > > > PV_TLB_FLUSH allows a guest to set a flush bit instead of sending flush > > IPI if the target VCPU is not running. This would be a waste of time > > with PV_DEDICATED as all VCPUs are expected to always running. > > > > With PV_DEDICATED, the guest should keep using native_flush_tlb_others. > > Is saving that for_each_cpu() really worth the effort compared to the > cost of actually doing the IPIs and CR3 write? It is one line for a few percent (hopefully better for AMD with AVIC). Still, keeping the decision completely on userspace would be cleaner. > Also, you should not put cpumask_t on stack, that's 'broken'. Good catch, thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists