From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/6] KVM: arm64: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus()
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 09:13:55 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87zgq36t64.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211116163443.88707-2-vkuznets@redhat.com>
On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 16:34:38 +0000,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Generally, it doesn't make sense to return the recommended maximum number
> of vCPUs which exceeds the maximum possible number of vCPUs.
>
> Note: ARM64 is special as the value returned by KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS differs
> depending on whether it is a system-wide ioctl or a per-VM one. Previously,
> KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS didn't have this difference and it seems preferable to
> keep the status quo. Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus()
> which is what gets returned by system-wide KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>,
Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com>,
Anup Patel <anup.patel@wdc.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] KVM: arm64: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus()
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 09:13:55 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87zgq36t64.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211116163443.88707-2-vkuznets@redhat.com>
On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 16:34:38 +0000,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Generally, it doesn't make sense to return the recommended maximum number
> of vCPUs which exceeds the maximum possible number of vCPUs.
>
> Note: ARM64 is special as the value returned by KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS differs
> depending on whether it is a system-wide ioctl or a per-VM one. Previously,
> KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS didn't have this difference and it seems preferable to
> keep the status quo. Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus()
> which is what gets returned by system-wide KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>,
Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com>,
Anup Patel <anup.patel@wdc.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] KVM: arm64: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus()
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 09:13:55 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87zgq36t64.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211116163443.88707-2-vkuznets@redhat.com>
On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 16:34:38 +0000,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Generally, it doesn't make sense to return the recommended maximum number
> of vCPUs which exceeds the maximum possible number of vCPUs.
>
> Note: ARM64 is special as the value returned by KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS differs
> depending on whether it is a system-wide ioctl or a per-VM one. Previously,
> KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS didn't have this difference and it seems preferable to
> keep the status quo. Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus()
> which is what gets returned by system-wide KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-17 9:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-16 16:34 [PATCH v2 0/6] KVM: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS and re-purpose it on x86 Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-16 16:34 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-16 16:34 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-16 16:34 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-16 16:34 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] KVM: arm64: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus() Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-16 16:34 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-16 16:34 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-16 16:34 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-17 9:13 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2021-11-17 9:13 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-11-17 9:13 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-11-17 12:07 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-11-17 12:07 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-11-17 12:07 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-11-17 12:07 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-11-16 16:34 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] KVM: MIPS: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-16 16:34 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-16 16:34 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-16 16:34 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-16 16:34 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] KVM: PPC: " Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-16 16:34 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-16 16:34 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-16 16:34 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-16 16:34 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] KVM: RISC-V: " Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-16 16:34 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-16 16:34 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-16 16:34 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-17 5:02 ` Anup Patel
2021-11-17 5:14 ` Anup Patel
2021-11-17 5:02 ` Anup Patel
2021-11-17 5:02 ` Anup Patel
2021-11-16 16:34 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] KVM: s390: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by num_online_cpus() Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-16 16:34 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-16 16:34 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-16 16:34 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-17 7:33 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-11-17 7:33 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-11-17 7:33 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-11-17 7:33 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-11-16 16:34 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] KVM: x86: Drop arbitraty KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-16 16:34 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-16 16:34 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-16 16:34 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-17 12:12 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-11-17 12:12 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-11-17 12:12 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-11-17 12:12 ` Paolo Bonzini
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87zgq36t64.wl-maz@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.