Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] KVM: use RCU to allow dynamic kvm->vcpus array

[David Hildenbrand]

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 <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> 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).
> 
> Paolo
> 

Unpopular opinion: Let's keep it simple first (straight rcu) and
optimize later on.

-- 

Thanks,

David