From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, 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>,
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] KVM: arm64: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 14:23:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y25onsj6.fsf@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ad3534bc-fe3a-55f5-b022-4dbec5f29798@redhat.com>
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> writes:
> On 11/12/21 15:02, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> I'd like KVM to be consistent across architectures and have the same
>>> (similar) meaning for KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS.
>> Sure, but this is a pretty useless piece of information anyway. As
>> Andrew pointed out, the information is available somewhere else, and
>> all we need to do is to cap it to the number of supported vcpus, which
>> is effectively a KVM limitation.
>>
>> Also, we are talking about representing the architecture to userspace.
>> No amount of massaging is going to make an arm64 box look like an x86.
>
> Not sure what you mean? The API is about providing a piece of
> information independent of the architecture, while catering for a ppc
> weirdness. Yes it's mostly useless if you don't care about ppc, but
> it's not about making arm64 look like x86 or ppc; it's about not having
> to special case ppc in userspace.
>
> If anything, if KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS returns the same for kvm and !kvm, then
> *that* is making an arm64 box look like an x86. On ARM the max vCPUs
> depends on VM's GIC configuration, so KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS should take that
> into account.
(I'm about to send v2 as we have s390 sorted out.)
So what do we decide about ARM?
- Current approach (kvm->arch.max_vcpus/kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus()
depending on 'if (kvm)') - that would be my preference.
- Always kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus to make the output independent on 'if
(kvm)'.
- keep the status quo (drop the patch).
Please advise)
--
Vitaly
_______________________________________________
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:[~2021-11-16 13:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-11 16:27 [PATCH 0/5] KVM: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS and re-purpose it on x86 Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-11 16:27 ` [PATCH 1/5] KVM: arm64: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-11 19:36 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-11-12 9:51 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-12 10:38 ` Andrew Jones
2021-11-12 10:51 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-11-12 14:02 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-11-12 14:10 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-11-16 13:23 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov [this message]
2021-11-16 15:50 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-11-16 15:55 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-11-16 15:58 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-11-11 16:27 ` [PATCH 2/5] KVM: MIPS: " Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-11 16:27 ` [PATCH 3/5] KVM: PPC: " Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-11 16:27 ` [PATCH 4/5] KVM: RISC-V: " Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-11 16:27 ` [PATCH 5/5] KVM: x86: Drop arbitraty KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-11 16:32 ` [PATCH 0/5] KVM: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS and re-purpose it on x86 Paolo Bonzini
2021-11-15 12:16 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-11-15 12:33 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-11-15 16:04 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-11-16 8:15 ` Christian Borntraeger
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=87y25onsj6.fsf@redhat.com \
--to=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com \
--cc=anup.patel@wdc.com \
--cc=chenhuacai@kernel.org \
--cc=drjones@redhat.com \
--cc=ehabkost@redhat.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=paulus@ozlabs.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=wanpengli@tencent.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).