lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 08/24] sched: Introduce per memory space current virtual cpu id
From
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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-11-17 18:20    [W:0.110 / U:0.704 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site