Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1530265876-18136-1-git-send-email-wanpengli@tencent.com>
 <1530265876-18136-3-git-send-email-wanpengli@tencent.com> <878t6xewei.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
 <7d2b34ad-2436-0cee-3e71-97ea2eb5fd49@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <7d2b34ad-2436-0cee-3e71-97ea2eb5fd49@redhat.com>
From:   Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 30 Jun 2018 18:05:33 +0800
Message-ID: <CANRm+CwK2Wza0P236mcMaMDEMbHR+tyFhOZEJtiUs5vtPLGkzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: X86: Implement PV send IPI support
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 at 18:49, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 29/06/2018 12:09, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >> +KVM_FEATURE_PV_SEND_IPI            ||    11 || guest checks this feature bit
> >> +                                   ||       || before enabling paravirtualized
> >> +                                   ||       || send IPIs.
> > In case we decide to apply this as-is we'll likely need a new feature
> > for PV IPI with > 64 vCPUs (or how else would the guest know if the host
> > is capable or not?)
> >
>
> Yes, it makes sense.  Perhaps we can do one of the following, or both:
>
> 1) add an argument for a "base vCPU id", so that you can use the
> hypercall to send the IPI to CPUs 64..127, 128..191 etc.
>
> 2) have two bitmask arguments so that one hypercall handles 128 vCPUs.
>
> to remove or limit the need for the more generic hypercall.

Have already done 2) in v2, will send out later.

Regards,
Wanpeng Li