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

[David Hildenbrand]

On 17.08.2017 12:18, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 17/08/2017 11:55, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> 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).
>>
>> Unpopular opinion: Let's keep it simple first (straight rcu) and
>> optimize later on.
> 
> RCU vs. SRCU is about correctness, not optimization...
> 
> Paolo
> 

Guess I am still missing the point why RCU cannot be used here.

-- 

Thanks,

David