On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 11:29:57AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 25/09/2018 10:57, Roman Kagan wrote: > > If we can assume that in all relevant cases vp_index coincides with the > > cpu index (which I think we can) then Vitaly's approach is the most > > efficient. > > > > If, on the opposite, we want to optimize for random mapping between > > vp_index and cpu index, then it's probably better instead to iterate > > over vcpus and test if their vp_index belongs to the requested mask. > > Yes, that would work too. Perhaps we can do both? You can have a > kvm->num_mismatched_vp_indexes count to choose between the two. Makes sense to me. Roman.
