On Fri, Nov 11, 2022, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > On 2022-11-10 23:41, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 1:05 PM Mathieu Desnoyers > > <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Also, in my mind "virtual cpu" is vCPU, which this isn't. Maybe > > "compacted cpu" or something? It's a strange sort of concept. > > I've kept the same wording that has been introduced in 2011 by Paul Turner > and used internally at Google since then, although it may be confusing if > people expect kvm-vCPU and rseq-vcpu to mean the same thing. Both really end > up providing the semantic of a virtually assigned cpu id (in opposition to > the logical cpu id on the system), but this is much more involved in the > case of KVM. I had the same reaction as Andy. The rseq concepts don't worry me so much as the existence of "vcpu" in mm_struct/task_struct, e.g. switch_mm_vcpu() when switching between KVM vCPU tasks is going to be super confusing. Ditto for mm_vcpu_get() and mm_vcpu_put() in the few cases where KVM currently does mmget()/mmput().
