linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/8] KVM: selftests: Create a demand paging test

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:   Tue, 7 Jan 2020 15:56:08 +0100
From:   Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc:     Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Cannon Matthews <cannonmatthews@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/8] KVM: selftests: Create a demand paging test

On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 09:33:34AM -0500, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 01:38:54PM -0800, Ben Gardon wrote:
> > While userfaultfd, KVM's demand paging implementation, is not specific
> > to KVM, having a benchmark for its performance will be useful for
> > guiding performance improvements to KVM. As a first step towards creating
> > a userfaultfd demand paging test, create a simple memory access test,
> > based on dirty_log_test.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>
> 
> It's fine to start with x86-only for this test, but imho it would be
> better to mention that in cover letter, or reply to reviewer comments
> on that you removed aarch64 from previous post.

I'd also prefer that if it's x86-only that it be put in the x86_64
subdirectory and drop the arch #ifdefs. The question is why is it
x86-only for now though? Will it take a lot of work to port it to
other architectures? Or does it just need testing by someone with
the hardware?

Thanks,
drew