Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/19] Core scheduling v4 | From | Dario Faggioli <> | Date | Tue, 28 Jan 2020 03:40:09 +0100 |
| |
On Tue, 2020-01-14 at 10:40 -0500, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote: > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 8:12 PM Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com> > > > 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 http://about.me/dario.faggioli Virtualization Software Engineer SUSE Labs, SUSE https://www.suse.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------- <<This happens because _I_ choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |