Roman Kagan <rkagan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. Thanks guys, I'll try to draft something up for v6. -- Vitaly
