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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,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 40A6FC04AB4 for ; Tue, 14 May 2019 09:01:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14FB720862 for ; Tue, 14 May 2019 09:01:36 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 14FB720862 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43406 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQTJX-0000Cl-Bq for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 14 May 2019 05:01:35 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:56005) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQTIJ-0007vX-2p for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 May 2019 05:00:23 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQTII-0007O5-5y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 May 2019 05:00:19 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44586) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQTII-0007NE-04; Tue, 14 May 2019 05:00:18 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C6C530833DF; Tue, 14 May 2019 09:00:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gondolin (dhcp-192-222.str.redhat.com [10.33.192.222]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CE055D6A6; Tue, 14 May 2019 09:00:09 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 11:00:07 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck To: Christian Borntraeger Message-ID: <20190514110007.24d8ac33.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <9a9e9c58-d991-369f-a577-b70581efc75b@de.ibm.com> References: <1556749903-19221-1-git-send-email-walling@linux.ibm.com> <09293a1c-d000-83a8-46b8-b97ad4fa9774@de.ibm.com> <56e3ace1-6e48-0e20-47d5-b07ac6dfcf31@redhat.com> <20190513134637.3d8bb275.cohuck@redhat.com> <898144e3-615e-5074-fb68-bf9995c64609@de.ibm.com> <155d2ca3-6a48-c99a-fe42-dca8e3fd4344@redhat.com> <066c7470-94a3-a922-9a12-1ca42e474c51@de.ibm.com> <1a3dcb16-8c6f-214c-843d-6dca6a24801e@redhat.com> <9a9e9c58-d991-369f-a577-b70581efc75b@de.ibm.com> Organization: Red Hat GmbH MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.44]); Tue, 14 May 2019 09:00:17 +0000 (UTC) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4] s390: diagnose 318 info reset and migration support X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Collin Walling , David Hildenbrand , mst@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pasic@linux.ibm.com, qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, rth@twiddle.net Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Tue, 14 May 2019 10:56:43 +0200 Christian Borntraeger wrote: > On 14.05.19 10:50, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > Another idea for temporary handling: Simply only indicate 240 CPUs to > > the guest if the response does not fit into a page. Once we have that > > SCLP thingy, this will be fixed. Guest migration back and forth should > > work, as the VCPUs are fully functional (and initially always stopped), > > the guest will simply not be able to detect them via SCLP when booting > > up, and therefore not use them. > > Yes, that looks like a good temporary solution. In fact if the guest relies > on simply probing it could even make use of the additional CPUs. Its just > the sclp response that is limited to 240 (or make it 247?) Where did the 240 come from - extra spare room? If so, 247 would probably be all right?