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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 21 Dec 2017 16:08:30 +0100
From:   Vitaly Kuznetsov <>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <>
        Radim Krčmář <>,
        "K. Y. Srinivasan" <>,
        Haiyang Zhang <>,
        Stephen Hemminger <>,
        "Michael Kelley \(EOSG\)" <>,
        Mohammed Gamal <>,
        Cathy Avery <>, Bandan Das <>,
        Roman Kagan <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/7] KVM: nVMX: enlightened VMCS initial implementation

Paolo Bonzini <> writes:

> On 21/12/2017 13:50, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> I'm back with (somewhat frustrating) results (E5-2603):
> v4 (that would be Broadwell)?

Sorry, v3, actually. Haswell. (the first one supporting vmcs shadowing afaiu).

>> 1) Windows on Hyper-V (no nesting): 1350 cycles
>> 2) Windows on Hyper-V on Hyper-V: 8600
>> 3) Windows on KVM (no nesting): 1150  cycles
>> 4) Windows on Hyper-V on KVM (no enlightened VMCS): 18200
>> 5) Windows on Hyper-V on KVM (enlightened VMCS): 17100
> What version were you using for KVM?  There are quite a few nested virt
> optimizations in kvm/queue (which may make enlightened VMCS both more or
> less efficient).

This is kvm/queue and I rebased enlightened VMCS patches to it.

> In particular, with latest kvm/queue you could try tracing vmread and
> vmwrite vmexits, and see if you get any.  If you do, that might be an
> easy few hundred cycles savings.

Will do.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists