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 9FAA1C04AB4 for ; Tue, 14 May 2019 09:22:09 +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 1FA3E20843 for ; Tue, 14 May 2019 09:22:09 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1FA3E20843 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]:43919 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQTdQ-0005Ar-3n for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 14 May 2019 05:22:08 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:34920) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQTc9-0004W0-Ny for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 May 2019 05:20:51 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQTc8-0004gK-LV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 May 2019 05:20:49 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53064) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQTc8-0004fM-Dw; Tue, 14 May 2019 05:20:48 -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 7591730833C0; Tue, 14 May 2019 09:20:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.36.117.118] (ovpn-117-118.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.117.118]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74D125D706; Tue, 14 May 2019 09:20:43 +0000 (UTC) To: Christian Borntraeger , Cornelia Huck 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> <20190514104934.6bba9232.cohuck@redhat.com> <47f7134b-338f-0207-88ae-4c1969be3786@redhat.com> <13b0f0b2-f7c7-01fb-0e17-92bd47d9c346@de.ibm.com> From: David Hildenbrand Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Autocrypt: addr=david@redhat.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= xsFNBFXLn5EBEAC+zYvAFJxCBY9Tr1xZgcESmxVNI/0ffzE/ZQOiHJl6mGkmA1R7/uUpiCjJ dBrn+lhhOYjjNefFQou6478faXE6o2AhmebqT4KiQoUQFV4R7y1KMEKoSyy8hQaK1umALTdL QZLQMzNE74ap+GDK0wnacPQFpcG1AE9RMq3aeErY5tujekBS32jfC/7AnH7I0v1v1TbbK3Gp XNeiN4QroO+5qaSr0ID2sz5jtBLRb15RMre27E1ImpaIv2Jw8NJgW0k/D1RyKCwaTsgRdwuK Kx/Y91XuSBdz0uOyU/S8kM1+ag0wvsGlpBVxRR/xw/E8M7TEwuCZQArqqTCmkG6HGcXFT0V9 PXFNNgV5jXMQRwU0O/ztJIQqsE5LsUomE//bLwzj9IVsaQpKDqW6TAPjcdBDPLHvriq7kGjt WhVhdl0qEYB8lkBEU7V2Yb+SYhmhpDrti9Fq1EsmhiHSkxJcGREoMK/63r9WLZYI3+4W2rAc UucZa4OT27U5ZISjNg3Ev0rxU5UH2/pT4wJCfxwocmqaRr6UYmrtZmND89X0KigoFD/XSeVv jwBRNjPAubK9/k5NoRrYqztM9W6sJqrH8+UWZ1Idd/DdmogJh0gNC0+N42Za9yBRURfIdKSb B3JfpUqcWwE7vUaYrHG1nw54pLUoPG6sAA7Mehl3nd4pZUALHwARAQABzSREYXZpZCBIaWxk ZW5icmFuZCA8ZGF2aWRAcmVkaGF0LmNvbT7CwX4EEwECACgFAljj9eoCGwMFCQlmAYAGCwkI BwMCBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEE3eEPcA/4Na5IIP/3T/FIQMxIfNzZshIq687qgG 8UbspuE/YSUDdv7r5szYTK6KPTlqN8NAcSfheywbuYD9A4ZeSBWD3/NAVUdrCaRP2IvFyELj xoMvfJccbq45BxzgEspg/bVahNbyuBpLBVjVWwRtFCUEXkyazksSv8pdTMAs9IucChvFmmq3 jJ2vlaz9lYt/lxN246fIVceckPMiUveimngvXZw21VOAhfQ+/sofXF8JCFv2mFcBDoa7eYob s0FLpmqFaeNRHAlzMWgSsP80qx5nWWEvRLdKWi533N2vC/EyunN3HcBwVrXH4hxRBMco3jvM m8VKLKao9wKj82qSivUnkPIwsAGNPdFoPbgghCQiBjBe6A75Z2xHFrzo7t1jg7nQfIyNC7ez MZBJ59sqA9EDMEJPlLNIeJmqslXPjmMFnE7Mby/+335WJYDulsRybN+W5rLT5aMvhC6x6POK z55fMNKrMASCzBJum2Fwjf/VnuGRYkhKCqqZ8gJ3OvmR50tInDV2jZ1DQgc3i550T5JDpToh dPBxZocIhzg+MBSRDXcJmHOx/7nQm3iQ6iLuwmXsRC6f5FbFefk9EjuTKcLMvBsEx+2DEx0E UnmJ4hVg7u1PQ+2Oy+Lh/opK/BDiqlQ8Pz2jiXv5xkECvr/3Sv59hlOCZMOaiLTTjtOIU7Tq 7ut6OL64oAq+zsFNBFXLn5EBEADn1959INH2cwYJv0tsxf5MUCghCj/CA/lc/LMthqQ773ga uB9mN+F1rE9cyyXb6jyOGn+GUjMbnq1o121Vm0+neKHUCBtHyseBfDXHA6m4B3mUTWo13nid 0e4AM71r0DS8+KYh6zvweLX/LL5kQS9GQeT+QNroXcC1NzWbitts6TZ+IrPOwT1hfB4WNC+X 2n4AzDqp3+ILiVST2DT4VBc11Gz6jijpC/KI5Al8ZDhRwG47LUiuQmt3yqrmN63V9wzaPhC+ xbwIsNZlLUvuRnmBPkTJwwrFRZvwu5GPHNndBjVpAfaSTOfppyKBTccu2AXJXWAE1Xjh6GOC 8mlFjZwLxWFqdPHR1n2aPVgoiTLk34LR/bXO+e0GpzFXT7enwyvFFFyAS0Nk1q/7EChPcbRb hJqEBpRNZemxmg55zC3GLvgLKd5A09MOM2BrMea+l0FUR+PuTenh2YmnmLRTro6eZ/qYwWkC u8FFIw4pT0OUDMyLgi+GI1aMpVogTZJ70FgV0pUAlpmrzk/bLbRkF3TwgucpyPtcpmQtTkWS gDS50QG9DR/1As3LLLcNkwJBZzBG6PWbvcOyrwMQUF1nl4SSPV0LLH63+BrrHasfJzxKXzqg rW28CTAE2x8qi7e/6M/+XXhrsMYG+uaViM7n2je3qKe7ofum3s4vq7oFCPsOgwARAQABwsFl BBgBAgAPBQJVy5+RAhsMBQkJZgGAAAoJEE3eEPcA/4NagOsP/jPoIBb/iXVbM+fmSHOjEshl KMwEl/m5iLj3iHnHPVLBUWrXPdS7iQijJA/VLxjnFknhaS60hkUNWexDMxVVP/6lbOrs4bDZ NEWDMktAeqJaFtxackPszlcpRVkAs6Msn9tu8hlvB517pyUgvuD7ZS9gGOMmYwFQDyytpepo YApVV00P0u3AaE0Cj/o71STqGJKZxcVhPaZ+LR+UCBZOyKfEyq+ZN311VpOJZ1IvTExf+S/5 lqnciDtbO3I4Wq0ArLX1gs1q1XlXLaVaA3yVqeC8E7kOchDNinD3hJS4OX0e1gdsx/e6COvy qNg5aL5n0Kl4fcVqM0LdIhsubVs4eiNCa5XMSYpXmVi3HAuFyg9dN+x8thSwI836FoMASwOl C7tHsTjnSGufB+D7F7ZBT61BffNBBIm1KdMxcxqLUVXpBQHHlGkbwI+3Ye+nE6HmZH7IwLwV W+Ajl7oYF+jeKaH4DZFtgLYGLtZ1LDwKPjX7VAsa4Yx7S5+EBAaZGxK510MjIx6SGrZWBrrV TEvdV00F2MnQoeXKzD7O4WFbL55hhyGgfWTHwZ457iN9SgYi1JLPqWkZB0JRXIEtjd4JEQcx +8Umfre0Xt4713VxMygW0PnQt5aSQdMD58jHFxTk092mU+yIHj5LeYgvwSgZN4airXk5yRXl SE+xAvmumFBY Organization: Red Hat GmbH Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 11:20:41 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <13b0f0b2-f7c7-01fb-0e17-92bd47d9c346@de.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US 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 09:20:47 +0000 (UTC) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 , 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 14.05.19 11:10, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >=20 >=20 > On 14.05.19 10:59, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 14.05.19 10:49, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>> On Tue, 14 May 2019 10:37:32 +0200 >>> Christian Borntraeger wrote: >>> >>>> On 14.05.19 09:28, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>>>>>> But that can be tested using the runability information if I am = not wrong. =20 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You mean the cpu level information, right? =20 >>>>> >>>>> Yes, query-cpu-definition includes for each model runability inform= ation >>>>> via "unavailable-features" (valid under the started QEMU machine). >>>>> =20 >>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> and others that we have today. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So yes, I think this would be acceptable. =20 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I guess it is acceptable yes. I doubt anybody uses that many CPU= s in >>>>>>>> production either way. But you never know. =20 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think that using that many cpus is a more uncommon setup, but I= still >>>>>>> think that having to wait for actual failure =20 >>>>>> >>>>>> That can happen all the time today. You can easily say z14 in the = xml when=20 >>>>>> on a zEC12. Only at startup you get the error. The question is rea= lly: =20 >>>>> >>>>> "-smp 248 -cpu host" will no longer work, while e.g. "-smp 248 -cpu= z12" >>>>> will work. Actually, even "-smp 248" will no longer work on affecte= d >>>>> machines. >>>>> >>>>> That is why wonder if it is better to disable the feature and print= a >>>>> warning. Similar to CMMA, where want want to tolerate when CMMA is = not >>>>> possible in the current environment (huge pages). >>>>> >>>>> "Diag318 will not be enabled because it is not compatible with more= than >>>>> 240 CPUs". >>>>> >>>>> However, I still think that implementing support for more than one = SCLP >>>>> response page is the best solution. Guests will need adaptions for = > 240 >>>>> CPUs with Diag318, but who cares? Existing setups will continue to = work. >>>>> >>>>> Implementing that SCLP thingy will avoid any warnings and any error= s. It >>>>> just works from the QEMU perspective. >>>>> >>>>> Is implementing this realistic? =20 >>>> >>>> Yes it is but it will take time. I will try to get this rolling. To = make >>>> progress on the diag318 thing, can we error on startup now and simpl= y >>>> remove that check when when have implemented a larger sccb? If we wo= uld >>>> now do all kinds of "change the max number games" would be harder to= "fix". >>> >>> So, the idea right now is: >>> >>> - fail to start if you try to specify a diag318 device and more than >>> 240 cpus (do we need a knob to turn off the device?) >>> - in the future, support more than one SCLP response page >>> >>> I'm getting a bit lost in the discussion; but the above sounds >>> reasonable to me. >>> >> >> We can >> >> 1. Fail to start with #cpus > 240 when diag318=3Don >> 2. Remove the error once we support more than one SCLP response page >> >> Or >> >> 1. Allow to start with #cpus > 240 when diag318=3Don, but indicate onl= y >> 240 CPUs via SCLP >> 2. Print a warning >> 3. Remove the restriction and the warning once we support more than on= e >> SCLP response page >> >> While I prefer the second approach (similar to defining zPCI devices >> without zpci=3Don), I could also live with the first approach. >=20 > I prefer approach 1. >=20 Isn't approach #2 what we discussed (limiting sclp, but of course to 247 CPUs), but with an additional warning? I'm confused. --=20 Thanks, David / dhildenb