On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 11:31:17AM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > My preference has been: > > > > 1. If we were to ditch cgroups, then add a new interface that would allow > > us to bind threads to a specific CPU, so that it lines up with the guest's > > mq to CPU mapping. > > A 1:1 vCPU/vq->CPU mapping isn't desirable in all cases. > > The CPU affinity is a userspace policy decision. The host kernel should > provide a mechanism but not the policy. That way userspace can decide > which workers are shared by multiple vqs and on which physical CPUs they > should run. So if we let userspace dictate the threading policy then I think binding vqs to userspace threads and running there makes the most sense, no need to create the threads. -- MST _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
