From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christian Borntraeger Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 12:33:56 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] KVM: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS and re-purpose it on x86 Message-Id: List-Id: References: <20211111162746.100598-1-vkuznets@redhat.com> <4a3c7be7-12fa-6e47-64eb-02e6c5be5dbc@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4a3c7be7-12fa-6e47-64eb-02e6c5be5dbc@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: Paolo Bonzini , Vitaly Kuznetsov , kvm@vger.kernel.org Cc: Sean Christopherson , Wanpeng Li , Jim Mattson , Eduardo Habkost , Marc Zyngier , Andrew Jones , Huacai Chen , Aleksandar Markovic , Anup Patel , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am 11.11.21 um 17:32 schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > On 11/11/21 17:27, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >> This is a comtinuation of "KVM: x86: Drop arbitraty KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS" >> (https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20211111134733.86601-1-vkuznets@redhat.com/) >> work. >> >> 1) Enforce KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS <= KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS rule on all >>   architectures. [Sean Christopherson] >> 2) Make KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS return num_online_cpus() and not an arbitrary >>   value of '710' on x86. >> >> Everything but x86 was only 'eyeball tested', the change is trivial >> but sorry in advance if I screwed up) > > Christian, can you look at this for s390?  Returning a fixed value seems wrong for KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS. If we talk about recommended number, then num_online_cpus() also seems to make sense on s390 so if you change that for s390 as well I can ACK this.