[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y3aHMTNv0yiyHCun@google.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 19:10:41 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>, David.Laight@...lab.com,
carlos@...hat.com, Peter Oskolkov <posk@...k.io>,
Alexander Mikhalitsyn <alexander@...alicyn.com>,
Chris Kennelly <ckennelly@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/24] sched: Introduce per memory space current
virtual cpu id
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> 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@...icios.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 ?
What about something like "process-local-cpu-id" to capture that the ID has meaning
only within the associated address space / process?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists