Skip to content

Conversation

ShadowCurse
Copy link
Contributor

Changes

Instead of storing mmaped kvm_vcpu struct in the TLS, we can have it in the VcpuHandle. This way we don't need to deal with TLS and it's synchronization.

Reason

Dealing with TLS was difficult and bug prone

License Acceptance

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under
the terms of the Apache 2.0 license. For more information on following Developer
Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check
CONTRIBUTING.md.

PR Checklist

  • I have read and understand CONTRIBUTING.md.
  • I have run tools/devtool checkbuild --all to verify that the PR passes
    build checks on all supported architectures.
  • I have run tools/devtool checkstyle to verify that the PR passes the
    automated style checks.
  • I have described what is done in these changes, why they are needed, and
    how they are solving the problem in a clear and encompassing way.
  • I have updated any relevant documentation (both in code and in the docs)
    in the PR.
  • I have mentioned all user-facing changes in CHANGELOG.md.
  • If a specific issue led to this PR, this PR closes the issue.
  • When making API changes, I have followed the
    Runbook for Firecracker API changes.
  • I have tested all new and changed functionalities in unit tests and/or
    integration tests.
  • I have linked an issue to every new TODO.

  • This functionality cannot be added in rust-vmm.

@ShadowCurse ShadowCurse self-assigned this Sep 3, 2025
@ShadowCurse ShadowCurse force-pushed the vcpu_tls_removal branch 5 times, most recently from 2471eea to 334c095 Compare September 4, 2025 13:50
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 4, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 70.00000% with 9 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 82.73%. Comparing base (1bd63b2) to head (5d27e6b).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/vmm/src/builder.rs 0.00% 8 Missing ⚠️
src/vmm/src/lib.rs 90.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #5428      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   82.73%   82.73%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         263      263              
  Lines       27455    27455              
==========================================
- Hits        22715    22714       -1     
- Misses       4740     4741       +1     
Flag Coverage Δ
5.10-m5n.metal 82.85% <70.00%> (+0.01%) ⬆️
5.10-m6a.metal 82.09% <70.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
5.10-m6g.metal 79.52% <70.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
5.10-m6i.metal 82.85% <70.00%> (+0.02%) ⬆️
5.10-m7a.metal-48xl 82.09% <70.00%> (+0.02%) ⬆️
5.10-m7g.metal 79.52% <70.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
5.10-m7i.metal-24xl 82.81% <70.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
5.10-m7i.metal-48xl 82.81% <70.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
5.10-m8g.metal-24xl 79.52% <70.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
5.10-m8g.metal-48xl 79.52% <70.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
6.1-m5n.metal 82.88% <70.00%> (+0.01%) ⬆️
6.1-m6a.metal 82.14% <70.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
6.1-m6g.metal 79.52% <70.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-m6i.metal 82.88% <70.00%> (+0.01%) ⬆️
6.1-m7a.metal-48xl 82.12% <70.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
6.1-m7g.metal 79.52% <70.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-m7i.metal-24xl 82.88% <70.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
6.1-m7i.metal-48xl 82.88% <70.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
6.1-m8g.metal-24xl 79.52% <70.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-m8g.metal-48xl 79.52% <70.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Instead of storing mmaped kvm_vcpu struct in the TLS,
we can have it in the VcpuHandle. This way we don't need
to deal with TLS and it's synchronization.

Signed-off-by: Egor Lazarchuk <yegorlz@amazon.co.uk>
Since we store VcpuFds in VcpuHandles inside Vmm,
and GDB stub has access to Vmm, remove redundant duplication
of VcpuFds.

Signed-off-by: Egor Lazarchuk <yegorlz@amazon.co.uk>
@ShadowCurse ShadowCurse marked this pull request as ready for review September 4, 2025 15:16
@ShadowCurse ShadowCurse added Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed Type: Enhancement Indicates new feature requests labels Sep 4, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed Type: Enhancement Indicates new feature requests
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant