lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 0/2] KVM: use RCU to allow dynamic kvm->vcpus array
From
Date
On 17.08.2017 11:44, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 17/08/2017 11:28, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> 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 agree, that's why I'm suggesting SRCU instead. But it's a trick that
> has its uses. For example, if you were only doing reads from a work
> queue, flush_work_queue could be used as the "homegrown
> synchronize_rcu". In KVM you might use kvm_make_all_cpus_request, I guess.
>
>> I also may be misunderstanding what Alex means with "vcpu move"...
>
> My interpretation was "resizing the array" (so it moves in memory).
>
> Paolo
>

Unpopular opinion: Let's keep it simple first (straight rcu) and
optimize later on.

--

Thanks,

David

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-17 11:56    [W:0.156 / U:0.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site