Re: [PATCH 9/9] KVM: VMX: automatic PLE window maximum

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Il 20/08/2014 18:01, Radim Krčmář ha scritto:
> 2014-08-20 17:34+0200, Paolo Bonzini:
>> Il 20/08/2014 17:31, Radim Krčmář ha scritto:
>>> Btw. without extra code, we are still going to overflow on races when
>>> changing PW_grow, should they be covered as well?
>>
>> You mean because there is no spinlock or similar protecting the changes?
>>  I guess you could use a seqlock.
> 
> Yes, for example between a modification of ple_window
>   new = min(old, PW_actual_max) * PW_grow
> which gets compiled into something like this:
>   1) tmp = min(old, PW_actual_max)
>   2) new = tmp * PW_grow
> and a write to increase PW_grow
>   3) PW_actual_max = min(PW_max / new_PW_grow, PW_actual_max)
>   4) PW_grow = new_PW_grow
>   5) PW_actual_max = PW_max / new_PW_grow
> 
> 3 and 4 can exectute between 1 and 2, which could overflow.
> 
> I don't think they are important enough to warrant a significant
> performance hit of locking.

A seqlock just costs two memory accesses to the same (shared) cache line
as the PW data, and a non-taken branch.  I don't like code that is
unsafe by design...

Paolo

> Or even more checks that would prevent it in a lockless way.
> 
> (I'd just see that the result is set to something legal and also drop
>  line 3, because it does not help things that much.)
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux