Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-173379-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 07:01:29 -0700
In-Reply-To: <ZjsZVUdmDXZOn10l@LeoBras>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <3b2c222b-9ef7-43e2-8ab3-653a5ee824d4@paulmck-laptop>
 <ZjprKm5jG3JYsgGB@google.com> <663a659d-3a6f-4bec-a84b-4dd5fd16c3c1@paulmck-laptop>
 <ZjqWXPFuoYWWcxP3@google.com> <0e239143-65ed-445a-9782-e905527ea572@paulmck-laptop>
 <Zjq9okodmvkywz82@google.com> <ZjrClk4Lqw_cLO5A@google.com>
 <Zjroo8OsYcVJLsYO@LeoBras> <b44962dd-7b8a-4201-90b7-4c39ba20e28d@paulmck-laptop>
 <ZjsZVUdmDXZOn10l@LeoBras>
Message-ID: <ZjuFuZHKUy7n6-sG@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/2] Avoid rcu_core() if CPU just left guest vcpu
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, 
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>, Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>, 
	Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>, Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>, 
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, 
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>, 
	Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Wed, May 08, 2024, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> Something just hit me, and maybe I need to propose something more generic.

Yes.  This is what I was trying to get across with my complaints about keying off
of the last VM-Exit time.  It's effectively a broad stroke "this task will likely
be quiescent soon" and so the core concept/functionality belongs in common code,
not KVM.