Re: [PATCH v3 00/15] KVM: Dynamically size memslot arrays

[Sean Christopherson]

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 04:07:29PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> The end goal of this series is to dynamically size the memslot array so
> that KVM allocates memory based on the number of memslots in use, as
> opposed to unconditionally allocating memory for the maximum number of
> memslots.  On x86, each memslot consumes 88 bytes, and so with 2 address
> spaces of 512 memslots, each VM consumes ~90k bytes for the memslots.
> E.g. given a VM that uses a total of 30 memslots, dynamic sizing reduces
> the memory footprint from 90k to ~2.6k bytes.
> 
> The changes required to support dynamic sizing are relatively small,
> e.g. are essentially contained in patches 14/15 and 15/15.  Patches 1-13
> clean up the memslot code, which has gotten quite crusty, especially
> __kvm_set_memory_region().  The clean up is likely not strictly necessary
> to switch to dynamic sizing, but I didn't have a remotely reasonable
> level of confidence in the correctness of the dynamic sizing without first
> doing the clean up.
> 
> Christoffer, I added your Tested-by to the patches that I was confident
> would be fully tested based on the desription of what you tested.  Let me
> know if you disagree with any of 'em.
> 
> v3:
>   - Fix build errors on PPC and MIPS due to missed params during
>     refactoring [kbuild test robot].
>   - Rename the helpers for update_memslots() and add comments describing
>     the new algorithm and how it interacts with searching [Paolo].
>   - Remove the unnecessary and obnoxious warning regarding memslots being
>     a flexible array [Paolo].
>   - Fix typos in the changelog of patch 09/15 [Christoffer].
>   - Collect tags [Christoffer].
> 
> v2:
>   - Split "Drop kvm_arch_create_memslot()" into three patches to move
>     minor functional changes to standalone patches [Janosch].
>   - Rebase to latest kvm/queue (f0574a1cea5b, "KVM: x86: fix ...")
>   - Collect an Acked-by and a Reviewed-by

Paolo, do you want me to rebase this to the latest kvm/queue?