Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2022 19:10:41 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>, David.Laight@aculab.com,
        carlos@redhat.com, Peter Oskolkov <posk@posk.io>,
        Alexander Mikhalitsyn <alexander@mihalicyn.com>,
        Chris Kennelly <ckennelly@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/24] sched: Introduce per memory space current
 virtual cpu id
Message-ID: <Y3aHMTNv0yiyHCun@google.com>
References: <20221103200359.328736-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
 <20221103200359.328736-9-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
 <CALCETrW1doHX3=za+KDuB=4y+wHsnaZpVkDP3OhZXGrQU2iffw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2f191ddb-de89-52c0-e7da-26ac0239b8fe@efficios.com>
 <Y3KpxR4ABRxvD+kj@google.com>
 <273f4883-25bc-44ad-9c35-3950ca8a3fcf@efficios.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <273f4883-25bc-44ad-9c35-3950ca8a3fcf@efficios.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 17, 2022, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> On 2022-11-14 15:49, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > On 2022-11-10 23:41, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 1:05 PM Mathieu Desnoyers
> > > > <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
> > > > Also, in my mind "virtual cpu" is vCPU, which this isn't.  Maybe
> > > > "compacted cpu" or something?  It's a strange sort of concept.
> > > 
> > > I've kept the same wording that has been introduced in 2011 by Paul Turner
> > > and used internally at Google since then, although it may be confusing if
> > > people expect kvm-vCPU and rseq-vcpu to mean the same thing. Both really end
> > > up providing the semantic of a virtually assigned cpu id (in opposition to
> > > the logical cpu id on the system), but this is much more involved in the
> > > case of KVM.
> > 
> > I had the same reaction as Andy.  The rseq concepts don't worry me so much as the
> > existence of "vcpu" in mm_struct/task_struct, e.g. switch_mm_vcpu() when switching
> > between KVM vCPU tasks is going to be super confusing.  Ditto for mm_vcpu_get()
> > and mm_vcpu_put() in the few cases where KVM currently does mmget()/mmput().
> 
> I'm fine with changing the wording if it helps make things less confusing.
> 
> Should we go for "compact-cpu-id" ? "packed-cpu-id" ? Other ideas ?

What about something like "process-local-cpu-id" to capture that the ID has meaning
only within the associated address space / process?