linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM: s390: clear kicked

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:   Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:52:28 +0200
From:   Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To:     Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Michael Mueller <mimu@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>, farman@...ux.ibm.com,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM: s390: clear kicked_mask if not idle after set



Am 20.10.21 um 12:45 schrieb Halil Pasic:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:31:19 +0200
> Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Before releasing something like this, where none of us is sure if
>>> it really saves cpu cost, I'd prefer to run some measurement with
>>> the whole kicked_mask logic removed and to compare the number of
>>> vcpu wake ups with the number of interrupts to be processed by
>>> the gib alert mechanism in a slightly over committed host while
>>> driving with Matthews test load.
>>
>> But I think patch 1 and 2 can go immediately as they measurably or
>> testable fix things. Correct?
> 
> I think so as well. And if patch 3 is going to be dropped, I would
> really like to keep the unconditional clear in kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable(),
> as my analysis in the discussion points out: I think it can save us
> form trouble this patch is trying to address.

Yes, lets keep patch 1 and 2 as us and let us look deeper into this patch.
I will apply and queue 1 and 2 soon.