[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180629125216.GC15656@rkaganb.sw.ru>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 15:52:16 +0300
From: Roman Kagan <rkagan@...tuozzo.com>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
"K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
"Michael Kelley (EOSG)" <Michael.H.Kelley@...rosoft.com>,
Mohammed Gamal <mmorsy@...hat.com>,
Cathy Avery <cavery@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] KVM: x86: hyperv: introduce vp_index_to_vcpu_idx
mapping
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 01:37:44PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> The problem we're trying to solve here is: with PV TLB flush and IPI we
> need to walk through the supplied list of VP_INDEXes and get VCPU
> ids. Usually they match. But in case they don't [...]
Why wouldn't they *in practice*? Only if the userspace wanted to be
funny and assigned VP_INDEXes randomly? I'm not sure we need to
optimize for this case.
Note that the userspace can actually do nasty things with these
VP_INDEXes, like, say, have them non-unique. We need to be resilent to
it, but don't need to optimize for it.
I think I'd rather have a warning in kvm_hv_set_msr if the VP_INDEX
being assigned is not equal to the vcpu index, and start worrying about
optimization only if this warning starts being triggered by real
hypervisor applications.
Anyway I don't see an urgent need to bloat this patchset with optimizing
this translation; it can be done separately, if needed.
Roman.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists