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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20240712131416.78648a6e@rorschach.local.home>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 13:14:16 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, Mathieu Desnoyers
 <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, 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, 12 Jul 2024 10:08:43 -0700
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:

> > I am a bit confused by your statement Sean, because if a higher prio HOST
> > thread wakes up on the vCPU thread's phyiscal CPU, then a VM-Exit should
> > happen. That has nothing to do with IRQ delivery.  What am I missing?  
> 
> Why does that require hooking VM-Exit?

To do the lazy boosting. That's the time that the host can see the
priority of the currently running task.

-- Steve