From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] KVM: use RCU to allow dynamic kvm->vcpus array
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:28:29 +0200
Message-ID: <20170817112829.7795820a.cohuck@redhat.com>
References: <20170816194037.9460-1-rkrcmar@redhat.com>
        <b77b151f-e51d-3657-66e9-6fbc83887b18@suse.de>
        <20170817093612.024cc4bc.cohuck@redhat.com>
        <b69bc1e0-9d7b-5412-ba56-a5261d539a5b@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>,
        Radim =?UTF-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>,
        Christoffer Dall <cdall@linaro.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <b69bc1e0-9d7b-5412-ba56-a5261d539a5b@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:16:59 +0200
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 17/08/2017 09:36, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> >> What if we just sent a "vcpu move" request to all vcpus with the new 
> >> pointer after it moved? That way the vcpu thread itself would be 
> >> responsible for the migration to the new memory region. Only if all 
> >> vcpus successfully moved, keep rolling (and allow foreign get_vcpu again).
> >>
> >> That way we should be basically lock-less and scale well. For additional 
> >> icing, feel free to increase the vcpu array x2 every time it grows to 
> >> not run into the slow path too often.  
> > 
> > I'd prefer the rcu approach: This is a mechanism already understood
> > well, no need to come up with a new one that will likely have its own
> > share of problems.  
> 
> What Alex is proposing _is_ RCU, except with a homegrown
> synchronize_rcu.  Using kvm->srcu seems to be the best of both worlds.

I'm worried a bit about the 'homegrown' part, though.

I also may be misunderstanding what Alex means with "vcpu move"...