# Re: \[PATCH 00/17\] Paravirt CPUs and push task for less vCPU preemption

- From: Shrikanth Hegde \<sshegde@linux.ibm.com\>
- Date: 2025-11-25 02:40:02 
- List: linuxppc-dev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2025/11/3311300
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2025/11/3303735/t.md

```text
Hi Greg.

On 11/24/25 10:35 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 06:14:32PM +0530, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
>> Detailed problem statement and some of the implementation choices were
>> discussed earlier[1].
>>
>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250910174210.1969750-1-sshegde@linux.ibm.com/
>>
>> This is likely the version which would be used for LPC2025 discussion on
>> this topic. Feel free to provide your suggestion and hoping for a solution
>> that works for different architectures and it's use cases.
>>
>> All the existing alternatives such as cpu hotplug, creating isolated
>> partitions etc break the user affinity. Since number of CPUs to use change
>> depending on the steal time, it is not driven by User. Hence it would be
>> wrong to break the affinity. This series allows if the task is pinned
>> only paravirt CPUs, it will continue running there.
>>
>> Changes compared v3[1]:
>
> There is no "v" for this series :(
>

I thought about adding v1.

I made it as PATCH from RFC PATCH since functionally it should
be complete now with arch bits. Since it is v1, I remember usually people send out without adding v1. after v1 had tags such as v2.

I will keep v2 for the next series.


```