[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v4 00/19] Core scheduling v4
On Tue, 2020-01-14 at 10:40 -0500, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 8:12 PM Tim Chen <>
> > As a side effect of the fix, each core can now operate in core-
> > scheduling
> > mode or non core-scheduling mode, depending on how many online SMT
> > threads it has.
> >
> > Vineet, are you guys planning to refresh v4 and update it to
> > v5? Aubrey posted
> > a port to the latest kernel earlier.
> >
> We are investigating a performance issue
> with
> high overcommit io intensive workload and also we are trying to see
> if
> we can add synchronization during VMEXITs so that a guest vm cannot
> run
> run alongside with host kernel.
So, about this VMEXIT sync thing. I do agree that we should at least
try and do it (and assess performance).

I was wondering, however, what we think about core-scheduling + address
space isolation (or whatever it is/will be called). More specifically,
whether such a solution wouldn't be considered an equally safe setup
(at least for the virt use-cases, of course).

Basically, core-scheduling would prevent VM-to-VM attacks while ASI
would mitigate VM-to-hypervisor attacks.

Of course, such a solution would need to be fully implemented and
evaluated too... I just wanted to toss it around, mostly to know what
you think about it and whether or not it is already on your radar.

Thanks and Regards
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D
Virtualization Software Engineer
<<This happens because _I_ choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-28 03:40    [W:0.166 / U:0.628 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site