Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 29 Sep 2021 17:54:08 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@oracle.com>
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, shuah@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] selftests: KVM: set affinity of VM to right CPUs
Message-ID: <YVSoQD+yuQzlKLoM@google.com>
References: <20210924233037.4329-1-dongli.zhang@oracle.com>
 <YVIZ/67cfjk18mbe@google.com>
 <5b0a16a9-e98e-368f-4ecd-359c58ae34c4@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5b0a16a9-e98e-368f-4ecd-359c58ae34c4@oracle.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 28, 2021, Dongli Zhang wrote:
> 
> On 9/27/21 12:22 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Perhaps a linked list is more suitable to here (when there are 1024 cpus and the
> task is bound to both 1 and 1022) ... to pre-save the possible cpus in a list
> and to only move to next cpu in the list for each iteration.
> 
> However, I think min_cpu/max_cpu is good enough for selttests case.

Yeah, it's annoying that there's no CPU_SET_FOR_EACH so that x86 could optimize
it to use BSF :-/

> Would you please let me know if you would like to send above with my
> Reported-by, or if you would like me to send with your Suggested-by.

If you don't mind, I'll send a patch, I want to fiddle with the migration loop to
see if I can make it less magical/ugly.