From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E1AAC432BE for ; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 10:14:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A2D06101A for ; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 10:14:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232819AbhIAKO5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Sep 2021 06:14:57 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:52822 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232258AbhIAKO4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Sep 2021 06:14:56 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1630491239; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=6Xhqwxajqw0bB7EMsnxFVtWq78wNvOTmsrxkbIXy3c4=; b=b6kitShZD8zhjaBSHeATZzxKhJcb+nHe3juAK64n2VFHVWqc4zo2/V6cogcCYSb/W46XIm zSjhjQH9BAdPTZ/38d9zrZf4S8TphPC7m/PIICZCiLMCV+c/BO8L5p4gDTzXM5bKk9tQYw XhhQHy7pqANr9+QT/OlLJOtXYCq1RMw= Received: from mail-wr1-f72.google.com (mail-wr1-f72.google.com [209.85.221.72]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-165-Q9sb9MG1N0KLrufjW-g8hQ-1; Wed, 01 Sep 2021 06:13:58 -0400 X-MC-Unique: Q9sb9MG1N0KLrufjW-g8hQ-1 Received: by mail-wr1-f72.google.com with SMTP id h14-20020a056000000e00b001575b00eb08so611835wrx.13 for ; Wed, 01 Sep 2021 03:13:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=6Xhqwxajqw0bB7EMsnxFVtWq78wNvOTmsrxkbIXy3c4=; b=eUkGmD7VkinPcAECtAGZ80NoOSMypZkRN5OIjPMpDlMqm4Aq7EG8Gl3AbNvRCwggC7 vxBu8AyBdG1pRrrwFCCvoSutodNb0PK15IrNYrVMqbStwEvpAZFm3MCwXwnL9fsijkRH G5sPDGZ1eg+Sjxi4bMTBBSkGLsj77uExCYm3qie3+mycSVBUTb7zDmJlfu3CshVFyJd5 E8TO/XIE3TbN3aR/kW+0EawHjTqekVjDRRKgSDjVR3ToAAUttw97qioUjFzQW3sV5qWz 3BWrhBer/RoZgLAKBLyY2GTAfOOud908jwbHy4GZNEVHsH4ZMM566hCmz0B1p7kly+iL Q97Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5309h/GR26ASnTaZmB4QHAlKYYItu/eqh0Hnzf6m23Lsm8T8io7X 87XEfLh6fVMKmSyE1cFTR4eDlZKEOUy1caT5V6DiAN/Y5UPKZLjACW0i3rXJxt7qX1wWGspG1Hs 90WYDlU+xpMFO X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:230c:: with SMTP id 12mr8905967wmo.41.1630491237322; Wed, 01 Sep 2021 03:13:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwq5cIMX75slmoFWnEm9AA+yLh1uSyJ7JThTl4wi3kQ9KjhcBMBzMwNRwVvaOcfMq6C15ZGqA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:230c:: with SMTP id 12mr8905950wmo.41.1630491237110; Wed, 01 Sep 2021 03:13:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vitty.brq.redhat.com (g-server-2.ign.cz. [91.219.240.2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o23sm9347859wro.76.2021.09.01.03.13.55 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 01 Sep 2021 03:13:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Vitaly Kuznetsov To: Igor Mammedov Cc: Eduardo Habkost , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini , Sean Christopherson Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: x86: Increase MAX_VCPUS to 710 In-Reply-To: <20210901111326.2efecf6e@redhat.com> References: <20210831204535.1594297-1-ehabkost@redhat.com> <87sfyooh9x.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> <20210901111326.2efecf6e@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2021 12:13:55 +0200 Message-ID: <87ilzkob6k.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org Igor Mammedov writes: > On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 10:02:18 +0200 > Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > >> Eduardo Habkost writes: >> >> > Support for 710 VCPUs has been tested by Red Hat since RHEL-8.4. >> > Increase KVM_MAX_VCPUS and KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS to 710. >> > >> > For reference, visible effects of changing KVM_MAX_VCPUS are: >> > - KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS and KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS will now return 710 (of course) >> > - Default value for CPUID[HYPERV_CPUID_IMPLEMENT_LIMITS (00x40000005)].EAX >> > will now be 710 >> > - Bitmap stack variables that will grow: >> > - At kvm_hv_flush_tlb() kvm_hv_send_ipi(): >> > - Sparse VCPU bitmap (vp_bitmap) will be 96 bytes long >> > - vcpu_bitmap will be 92 bytes long >> > - vcpu_bitmap at bioapic_write_indirect() will be 92 bytes long >> > once patch "KVM: x86: Fix stack-out-of-bounds memory access >> > from ioapic_write_indirect()" is applied >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost >> > --- >> > arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 4 ++-- >> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h >> > index af6ce8d4c86a..f76fae42bf45 100644 >> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h >> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h >> > @@ -37,8 +37,8 @@ >> > >> > #define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_VCPU_DEBUGFS >> > >> > -#define KVM_MAX_VCPUS 288 >> > -#define KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS 240 >> > +#define KVM_MAX_VCPUS 710 >> >> Out of pure curiosity, where did 710 came from? Is this some particular >> hardware which was used for testing (weird number btw). Should we maybe >> go to e.g. 1024 for the sake of the beauty of powers of two? :-) >> >> > +#define KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS 710 >> >> Do we really need KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS which is equal to KVM_MAX_VCPUS? >> >> Reading >> >> commit 8c3ba334f8588e1d5099f8602cf01897720e0eca >> Author: Sasha Levin >> Date: Mon Jul 18 17:17:15 2011 +0300 >> >> KVM: x86: Raise the hard VCPU count limit >> >> the idea behind KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS was to allow developers to test high >> vCPU numbers without claiming such configurations as supported. >> >> I have two alternative suggestions: >> 1) Drop KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS completely. >> 2) Raise it to a higher number (e.g. 2048) >> >> > #define KVM_MAX_VCPU_ID 1023 >> >> 1023 may not be enough now. I rememeber there was a suggestion to make >> max_vcpus configurable via module parameter and this question was >> raised: >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/878s292k75.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com/ >> >> TL;DR: to support EPYC-like topologies we need to keep >> KVM_MAX_VCPU_ID = 4 * KVM_MAX_VCPUS > > VCPU_ID (sequential 0-n range) is not APIC ID (sparse distribution), > so topology encoded in the later should be orthogonal to VCPU_ID. Why do we even have KVM_MAX_VCPU_ID which is != KVM[_SOFT]_MAX_VCPUS then? KVM_MAX_VCPU_ID is only checked in kvm_vm_ioctl_create_vcpu() which passes 'id' down to kvm_vcpu_init() which, in its turn, sets 'vcpu->vcpu_id'. This is, for example, returned by kvm_x2apic_id(): static inline u32 kvm_x2apic_id(struct kvm_lapic *apic) { return apic->vcpu->vcpu_id; } So I'm pretty certain this is actually APIC id and it has topology in it. -- Vitaly