linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/5] Paravirt Scheduling (Dynamic vcpu priority management)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZpFdYFNfWcnq5yJM@google.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:44:16 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, 
	Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vineeth@...byteword.org>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, 
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>, 
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, 
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, 
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, 
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, 
	Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>, Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>, 
	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, himadrics@...ia.fr, 
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, 
	graf@...zon.com, drjunior.org@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/5] Paravirt Scheduling (Dynamic vcpu priority management)

On Fri, Jul 12, 2024, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 10:09:03 -0400
> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > > Steven Rostedt told me, what we instead need is a tracepoint callback in a
> > > driver, that does the boosting.  
> > 
> > I utterly dislike changing the system behavior through tracepoints. They were
> > designed to observe the system, not modify its behavior. If people start abusing
> > them, then subsystem maintainers will stop adding them. Please don't do that.
> > Add a notifier or think about integrating what you are planning to add into the
> > driver instead.
> 
> I tend to agree that a notifier would be much better than using
> tracepoints, but then I also think eBPF has already let that cat out of
> the bag. :-p
> 
> All we need is a notifier that gets called at every VMEXIT.

Why?  The only argument I've seen for needing to hook VM-Exit is so that the
host can speculatively boost the priority of the vCPU when deliverying an IRQ,
but (a) I'm unconvinced that is necessary, i.e. that the vCPU needs to be boosted
_before_ the guest IRQ handler is invoked and (b) it has almost no benefit on
modern hardware that supports posted interrupts and IPI virtualization, i.e. for
which there will be no VM-Exit.