linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] KVM: LAPIC: Delay trace advance expire delta

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:   Mon, 20 May 2019 13:33:28 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] KVM: LAPIC: Delay trace advance expire delta

On 20/05/19 13:22, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>
>> We would like to move wait_lapic_expire() just before vmentry, which would
>> place wait_lapic_expire() again inside the extended quiescent state.  Drop
>> the tracepoint, but add instead another one that can be useful and where
>> we can check the status of the adaptive tuning procedure.
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/15/1435
> 
> Maybe Sean's comment is reasonable, per-vCPU debugfs entry for
> adaptive tuning and wait_lapic_expire() tracepoint for hand tuning.

Hmm, yeah, that makes sense.  The location of the tracepoint is a bit
weird, but I guess we can add a comment in the code.

Paolo