From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, 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 15:55:11 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <875yss859c.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <87y25onsj6.fsf@redhat.com> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 13:23:25 +0000, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote: > > 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? [...] > - Always kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus to make the output independent on 'if > (kvm)'. This. Between two useless numbers, I prefer the one that doesn't introduce any userspace visible changes. Thanks, M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, 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 15:55:11 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <875yss859c.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <87y25onsj6.fsf@redhat.com> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 13:23:25 +0000, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote: > > 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? [...] > - Always kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus to make the output independent on 'if > (kvm)'. This. Between two useless numbers, I prefer the one that doesn't introduce any userspace visible changes. Thanks, M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. _______________________________________________ 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 15:55 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 60+ 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 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov 2021-11-11 16:27 ` 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 16:27 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov 2021-11-11 16:27 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov 2021-11-11 19:36 ` Marc Zyngier 2021-11-11 19:36 ` Marc Zyngier 2021-11-12 9:51 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov 2021-11-12 9:51 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov 2021-11-12 9:51 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov 2021-11-12 10:38 ` Andrew Jones 2021-11-12 10:38 ` Andrew Jones 2021-11-12 10:38 ` Andrew Jones 2021-11-12 10:51 ` Paolo Bonzini 2021-11-12 10:51 ` Paolo Bonzini 2021-11-12 10:51 ` Paolo Bonzini 2021-11-12 14:02 ` Marc Zyngier 2021-11-12 14:02 ` Marc Zyngier 2021-11-12 14:10 ` Paolo Bonzini 2021-11-12 14:10 ` Paolo Bonzini 2021-11-12 14:10 ` Paolo Bonzini 2021-11-16 13:23 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov 2021-11-16 13:23 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov 2021-11-16 13:23 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov 2021-11-16 15:50 ` Paolo Bonzini 2021-11-16 15:50 ` Paolo Bonzini 2021-11-16 15:50 ` Paolo Bonzini 2021-11-16 15:55 ` Marc Zyngier [this message] 2021-11-16 15:55 ` Marc Zyngier 2021-11-16 15:58 ` Paolo Bonzini 2021-11-16 15:58 ` Paolo Bonzini 2021-11-16 15:58 ` Paolo Bonzini 2021-11-11 16:27 ` [PATCH 2/5] KVM: MIPS: " Vitaly Kuznetsov 2021-11-11 16:27 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov 2021-11-11 16:27 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov 2021-11-11 16:27 ` [PATCH 3/5] KVM: PPC: " Vitaly Kuznetsov 2021-11-11 16:27 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov 2021-11-11 16:27 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov 2021-11-11 16:27 ` [PATCH 4/5] KVM: RISC-V: " Vitaly Kuznetsov 2021-11-11 16:27 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov 2021-11-11 16:27 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov 2021-11-11 16:27 ` [PATCH 5/5] KVM: x86: Drop arbitraty KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS Vitaly Kuznetsov 2021-11-11 16:27 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov 2021-11-11 16:27 ` 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 2021-11-11 16:32 ` Paolo Bonzini 2021-11-11 16:32 ` Paolo Bonzini 2021-11-15 12:16 ` Christian Borntraeger 2021-11-15 12:16 ` Christian Borntraeger 2021-11-15 12:16 ` Christian Borntraeger 2021-11-15 12:33 ` Christian Borntraeger 2021-11-15 12:33 ` Christian Borntraeger 2021-11-15 12:33 ` Christian Borntraeger 2021-11-15 16:04 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov 2021-11-15 16:04 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov 2021-11-15 16:04 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov 2021-11-16 8:15 ` Christian Borntraeger 2021-11-16 8:15 ` Christian Borntraeger 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=875yss859c.wl-maz@kernel.org \ --to=maz@kernel.org \ --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=mpe@ellerman.id.au \ --cc=paulus@ozlabs.org \ --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \ --cc=seanjc@google.com \ --cc=vkuznets@redhat.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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.