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  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, 25 Sep 2018 11:29:57 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <>
To:     Roman Kagan <>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <>,,
        Radim Krčmář <>,
        "K. Y. Srinivasan" <>,
        Haiyang Zhang <>,
        Stephen Hemminger <>,
        "Michael Kelley (EOSG)" <>,
        Wanpeng Li <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 RESEND 3/5] KVM: x86: hyperv: use get_vcpu_by_vpidx()
 in kvm_hv_flush_tlb()

On 25/09/2018 10:57, Roman Kagan wrote:
> Speaking of the options we have, the choice depends on the assumptions
> we take. (And I guess when you spoke of quadratic complexity you
> referred to the algorithm to convert the vp_index mask into the KVM cpu
> mask.)

Right; with Vitaly's patch, if you have a random mapping between
vp_index and cpu index, each loop requires a list walk, and so you have
O(#VMcpus * #IPIcpus) worst case for sending an IPI to #IPIcpus CPUs in
a guest with #VMcpus.

> If we can assume that in all relevant cases vp_index coincides with the
> cpu index (which I think we can) then Vitaly's approach is the most
> efficient.
> If, on the opposite, we want to optimize for random mapping between
> vp_index and cpu index, then it's probably better instead to iterate
> over vcpus and test if their vp_index belongs to the requested mask.

Yes, that would work too.  Perhaps we can do both?  You can have a
kvm->num_mismatched_vp_indexes count to choose between the two.


> Neither of the above is quadratic.

> Dunno if we need to specifically consider intermediate situations.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists