Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 4 Mar 2019 16:06:54 -0800
From:   Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
To:     Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        H Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        x86 <x86@kernel.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/17] x86/split_lock: Enable #AC exception for split
 locked accesses
Message-ID: <20190305000653.GA233112@romley-ivt3.sc.intel.com>
References: <1551494711-213533-1-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com>
 <20190304215505.GC30350@char.us.oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190304215505.GC30350@char.us.oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 04:55:05PM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > This capability may also find usage in cloud. A user process with split
> > lock running in one guest can block other cores from accessing shared
> > memory during its split locked memory access. That may cause overall
> > system performance degradation.
> 
> "shared memory" ? As in memory shared between two guests?

Maybe I should remove the "shared" here.

Thanks.

-Fenghua