On 2015-09-15 12:14, Wanpeng Li wrote: > On 9/14/15 10:54 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Last but not least: the guest can now easily exhaust the host's pool of >> vpid by simply spawning plenty of VCPUs for L2, no? Is this acceptable >> or should there be some limit? > > I reuse the value of vpid02 while vpid12 changed w/ one invvpid in v2, > and the scenario which you pointed out can be avoid. I cannot yet follow why there is no chance for L1 to consume all vpids that the host manages in that single, global bitmap by simply spawning a lot of nested VCPUs for some L2. What is enforcing L1 to call nested vmclear - apparently the only way, besides destructing nested VCPUs, to release such vpids again? Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SES-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
