[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <871s9hreg5.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 13:42:18 +0200
From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
To: Roman Kagan <rkagan@...tuozzo.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org,
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>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 RESEND 3/5] KVM: x86: hyperv: use get_vcpu_by_vpidx() in kvm_hv_flush_tlb()
Roman Kagan <rkagan@...tuozzo.com> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 11:29:57AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 25/09/2018 10:57, Roman Kagan wrote:
>> > If we can assume that in all relevant cases vp_index coincides with the
>> > cpu index (which I think we can) then Vitaly's approach is the most
>> > efficient.
>> >
>> > If, on the opposite, we want to optimize for random mapping between
>> > vp_index and cpu index, then it's probably better instead to iterate
>> > over vcpus and test if their vp_index belongs to the requested mask.
>>
>> Yes, that would work too. Perhaps we can do both? You can have a
>> kvm->num_mismatched_vp_indexes count to choose between the two.
>
> Makes sense to me.
Thanks guys,
I'll try to draft something up for v6.
--
Vitaly
Powered by blists - more mailing lists