Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751851AbdHQKXS (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Aug 2017 06:23:18 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57442 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751055AbdHQKXQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Aug 2017 06:23:16 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 2B28ED7815 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=pbonzini@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] KVM: use RCU to allow dynamic kvm->vcpus array To: David Hildenbrand , Cornelia Huck Cc: Alexander Graf , =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= , 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 , Christian Borntraeger , James Hogan , Christoffer Dall , Paul Mackerras References: <20170816194037.9460-1-rkrcmar@redhat.com> <20170817093612.024cc4bc.cohuck@redhat.com> <20170817112829.7795820a.cohuck@redhat.com> <69d47131-2405-b2be-60d7-e40fbd17592a@redhat.com> <6609138c-6a29-5106-39a8-3219ce47f01a@redhat.com> <6b2816ca-d8c0-0819-efdb-c30fd3d1a0e9@redhat.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <20bd04bf-9d0d-ac95-212e-88530184fbf2@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 12:23:06 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6b2816ca-d8c0-0819-efdb-c30fd3d1a0e9@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US 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 10:23:16 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2058 Lines: 46 On 17/08/2017 12:20, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 17.08.2017 12:18, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> On 17/08/2017 11:55, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> 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 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). >>> >>> Unpopular opinion: Let's keep it simple first (straight rcu) and >>> optimize later on. >> >> RCU vs. SRCU is about correctness, not optimization... > > Guess I am still missing the point why RCU cannot be used here. Because the body of kvm_foreach_vcpu might sleep. Paolo