Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751666AbdHQJ2i (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 17 Aug 2017 05:28:38 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50328 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1750903AbdHQJ2g (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 17 Aug 2017 05:28:36 -0400
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com D10C9D714B
Authentication-Results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
Authentication-Results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=cohuck@redhat.com
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:28:29 +0200
From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] KVM: use RCU to allow dynamic kvm->vcpus array
Message-ID: <20170817112829.7795820a.cohuck@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <b69bc1e0-9d7b-5412-ba56-a5261d539a5b@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>
Organization: Red Hat GmbH
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.38]); Thu, 17 Aug 2017 09:28:36 +0000 (UTC)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1062
Lines: 23

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"...