From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] Introduce a workqueue to deliver PIT timer
 interrupts.
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:04:31 +0300
Message-ID: <20120418080431.GQ11918@redhat.com>
References: <20120417102601.GF11918@redhat.com>
 <4F8D45F0.4020908@redhat.com>
 <20120417103106.GG11918@redhat.com>
 <4F8D4917.5000703@redhat.com>
 <20120417110506.GJ11918@redhat.com>
 <4F8D5B4A.6070904@redhat.com>
 <20120417120340.GL11918@redhat.com>
 <4F8D5CBD.1070004@redhat.com>
 <4F8D9709.3020409@siemens.com>
 <4F8D9787.3000804@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:27994 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751293Ab2DRIEf (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 18 Apr 2012 04:04:35 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4F8D9787.3000804@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 07:17:11PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 04/17/2012 07:15 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > On 2012-04-17 14:06, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > On 04/17/2012 03:03 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> KVM_MAX_VCPUS.
> > >>>
> > >> Ah, so you are worried about malicious guest configuring pit to
> > >> broadcast to all its vcpus.
> > > 
> > > Yes - it can introduce huge amounts of latency this way which is exactly
> > > what Jan is trying to prevent.
> > > 
> > > Though I'm not sure spin_lock_irq() in the realtime tree actually
> > > disables irqs (but it's certainly not a good idea in mainline; it's
> > > nasty even with just the spinlock).
> >
> > This depends on how you declare the spin lock type - raw or normal. The
> > former will disable irqs, the latter not even preemption (but become a
> > mutex).
> 
> Yes (and I see no reason to use raw spinlocks here).  Still, for
It was raw spinlock until f4f510508741680e423524c222f615276ca6222c.

> mainline, are we okay with 254*IPIs?  Maybe it's not so bad and I'm
> overinflating the problem.
> 
Isn't 254*IPIs can also happen if application changes memory mapping?

--
			Gleb.