Re: [PATCH v5 08/24] sched: Introduce per memory space current virtual cpu id

[Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>]

On 2022-11-17 14:10, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> 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@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 ?
> 
> What about something like "process-local-cpu-id" to capture that the ID has meaning
> only within the associated address space / process?

Considering that the shorthand for "memory space" is "VM" in e.g. 
"CLONE_VM" clone(2) flags, perhaps "vm-cpu-id", "vm-local-cpu-id" or 
"per-vm-cpu-id" ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com