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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOyeoRWfPNmaWY6Lifdkdj3KPPM654vzDO+s3oduEMCJP+Asow@mail.gmail.com>
 <5CEC9667.30100@intel.com> <CAOyeoRWhfyuuYdguE6Wrzd7GOdow9qRE4MZ4OKkMc5cdhDT53g@mail.gmail.com>
 <5CEE3AC4.3020904@intel.com> <CAOyeoRW85jV=TW_xwSj0ZYwPj_L+G9wu+QPGEF3nBmPbWGX4_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <5CF07D37.9090805@intel.com> <CAOyeoRXWQaVYZSVL_LTTdAwJOEr+eCzhp1=_JcOX3i6_CJiD_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <5CF2599B.3030001@intel.com> <CAOyeoRWuHyhoy6NB=O+ekQMhBFngozKoanWzArxgBk4DH2hdtg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5CF5F6AE.90706@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <5CF5F6AE.90706@intel.com>
From:   Eric Hankland <ehankland@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Jun 2019 08:56:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOyeoRW5wx0F=9B24h29KkhUrbaORXVSoJufb4d-XzKiAsz+NQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] KVM: x86: PMU Whitelist
To:     Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@intel.com>
Cc:     pbonzini@redhat.com, rkrcmar@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:37 PM Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@intel.com> wrote:

> So, I'm not sure if "quantifying LLC contention" has been proved to
> be a real issue. If this is considered to be an issue:
>
> - without PMU, we could also write a piece of software to run in the
> guest to quantify that contention (e.g. by analyzing the memory access
> latency). How do you prevent this?
>
> - the same thing could also happen with the L1 cache (e.g. a vCPU
> and a host thread run 2 logical CPUs on the same core). If this is disabled
> as well, we may have very few events usable, and would like to see what you
> have on the whitelist.

Right - I'm aware there are other ways of detecting this - it's still
a class of events that some people don't want to surface. I'll ask if
there are any better examples.

Eric