Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Nov 2022 12:19:22 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 08/24] sched: Introduce per memory space current virtual cpu id | From | Mathieu Desnoyers <> |
| |
On 2022-11-14 15:49, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> On 2022-11-10 23:41, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 1:05 PM Mathieu Desnoyers >>> <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote: >>> Also, in my mind "virtual cpu" is vCPU, which this isn't. Maybe >>> "compacted cpu" or something? It's a strange sort of concept. >> >> I've kept the same wording that has been introduced in 2011 by Paul Turner >> and used internally at Google since then, although it may be confusing if >> people expect kvm-vCPU and rseq-vcpu to mean the same thing. Both really end >> up providing the semantic of a virtually assigned cpu id (in opposition to >> the logical cpu id on the system), but this is much more involved in the >> case of KVM. > > I had the same reaction as Andy. The rseq concepts don't worry me so much as the > existence of "vcpu" in mm_struct/task_struct, e.g. switch_mm_vcpu() when switching > between KVM vCPU tasks is going to be super confusing. Ditto for mm_vcpu_get() > and mm_vcpu_put() in the few cases where KVM currently does mmget()/mmput().
I'm fine with changing the wording if it helps make things less confusing.
Should we go for "compact-cpu-id" ? "packed-cpu-id" ? Other ideas ?
Thanks,
Mathieu
-- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. https://www.efficios.com
| |