Message-ID: <54E741A6.8000308@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 15:16:06 +0100
From: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Bogdan Purcareata <bogdan.purcareata@freescale.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
        bigeasy@linutronix.de
CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, scottwood@freescale.com,
        mihai.caraman@freescale.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc/kvm: Enable running guests on RT Linux
References: <1424251955-308-1-git-send-email-bogdan.purcareata@freescale.com> <54E73A6C.9080500@suse.de> <54E740E7.5090806@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <54E740E7.5090806@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1873
Lines: 44


On 20.02.15 15:12, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
> 
> On 20/02/2015 14:45, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18.02.15 10:32, Bogdan Purcareata wrote:
>>> This patchset enables running KVM SMP guests with external interrupts on an
>>> underlying RT-enabled Linux. Previous to this patch, a guest with in-kernel MPIC
>>> emulation could easily panic the kernel due to preemption when delivering IPIs
>>> and external interrupts, because of the openpic spinlock becoming a sleeping
>>> mutex on PREEMPT_RT_FULL Linux.
>>>
>>> 0001: converts the openpic spinlock to a raw spinlock, in order to circumvent
>>> this behavior. While this change is targeted for a RT enabled Linux, it has no
>>> effect on upstream kvm-ppc, so send it upstream for better future maintenance.
>>>
>>> 0002: introduces a limit on the maximum VCPUs a guest can have, in order to
>>> prevent potential DoS attack due to large system latencies. This patch is
>>> targeted to RT (due to CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL), but it can also be applied on
>>> upstream Linux, with no effect. Not sure if it's best to send it upstream and
>>> have a hanging CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL check there, with no effect, or send it
>>> against linux-stable-rt. Please apply as you consider appropriate.
>>
>> Thomas, what is the usual approach for patches like this? Do you take
>> them into your rt tree or should they get integrated to upstream?
> 
> Patch 1 is definitely suitable for upstream, that's the reason why we
> have raw_spin_lock vs. raw_spin_unlock.

I see, perfect :).

Bogdan, please resend patch 1 with CC to kvm-ppc@vger so that I can pick
it up from patchworks.


Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/