[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <06687f31-0941-46ad-e05c-cb3cfe211051@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:48:26 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
Roman Kagan <rkagan@...tuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] KVM: x86: hyper-v: set NoNonArchitecturalCoreSharing
CPUID bit when SMT is impossible
On 23/09/19 17:37, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> This patch reports NoNonArchitecturalCoreSharing bit in to userspace in the
>> first case. The second case is outside of KVM's domain of responsibility
>> (as vCPU pinning is actually done by someone who manages KVM's userspace -
>> e.g. libvirt pinning QEMU threads).
> This is purely about guest<->guest MDS, right? Ie. not worse than actual
> hardware.
Even within the same guest. If vCPU 1 is on virtual core 1 and vCPU 2
is on virtual core 2, but they can share the same physical core, core
scheduling in the guest can do nothing about it.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists