From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: =?utf-8?q?=3CBATV+97d4cf42843d34639730+5387+infradead=2Eorg+d?=
 =?utf-8?q?wmw2=40twosheds=2Esrs=2Einfradead=2Eorg=3E?=
Received: from twosheds.infradead.org ([2001:8b0:10b:1:21d:7dff:fe04:dbe2])	by
 Galois.linutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256)	(Exim
 4.80)	(envelope-from =?utf-8?q?=3CBATV+97d4cf42843d34639730+5387+infradea?=
 =?utf-8?q?d=2Eorg+dwmw2=40twosheds=2Esrs=2Einfradead=2Eorg=3E=29?=	id
 1fLtSN-0003Rc-7y	for speck@linutronix.de; Thu, 24 May 2018 18:51:15 +0200
Received: from [2001:8b0:10b:1::b8f]
	by twosheds.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux))
	id 1fLtSM-0003pk-IE
	for speck@linutronix.de; Thu, 24 May 2018 16:51:14 +0000
Message-ID: <1527180674.8186.162.camel@infradead.org>
Subject: [MODERATED] Re: L1D-Fault KVM mitigation
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.21.999.1805240902530.32557@i7.lan>
References: <20180424090630.wlghmrpasn7v7wbn@suse.de>
	 <20180424093537.GC4064@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	 <1524563292.8691.38.camel@infradead.org>
	 <20180424110445.GU4043@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	 <1527068745.8186.89.camel@infradead.org>
	 <20180524094526.GE12198@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	 <alpine.LFD.2.21.999.1805240833310.32557@i7.lan>
	 <1527177599.8186.147.camel@infradead.org>
	 <alpine.LFD.2.21.999.1805240902530.32557@i7.lan>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 17:51:14 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
To: speck@linutronix.de
List-ID: <speck.linutronix.de>

On Thu, 2018-05-24 at 09:35 -0700, speck for Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> The only case I see making up for it is when vm entry/exit are so rare 
> (because you don't actually do much virtualization at all) that you're 
> willing to make them much much slower just to keep HT for the 95% of the 
> time when you're not doing any virtualization at all.

With decently designed hardware and SR-IOV passthrough for all I/O, and
posted interrupts...