From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, 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: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 14:02:03 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <87k0hd8obo.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <875ysxg0s1.fsf@redhat.com> On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 09:51:10 +0000, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote: > > Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> writes: > > > Hi Vitaly, > > > > On 2021-11-11 16:27, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > >> It doesn't make sense to return the recommended maximum number of > >> vCPUs which exceeds the maximum possible number of vCPUs. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> > >> --- > >> arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 7 ++++++- > >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c > >> index 7838e9fb693e..391dc7a921d5 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c > >> @@ -223,7 +223,12 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, > >> long ext) > >> r = 1; > >> break; > >> case KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS: > >> - r = num_online_cpus(); > >> + if (kvm) > >> + r = min_t(unsigned int, num_online_cpus(), > >> + kvm->arch.max_vcpus); > >> + else > >> + r = min_t(unsigned int, num_online_cpus(), > >> + kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus()); > >> break; > >> case KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS: > >> case KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID: > > > > This looks odd. This means that depending on the phase userspace is > > in while initialising the VM, KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS can return one thing > > or the other. > > > > For example, I create a VM on a 32 CPU system, NR_VCPUS says 32. > > I create a GICv2 interrupt controller, it now says 8. > > > > That's a change in behaviour that is visible by userspace > > Yes, I realize this is a userspace visible change. The reason I suggest > it is that logically, it seems very odd that the maximum recommended > number of vCPUs (KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS) can be higher, than the maximum > supported number of vCPUs (KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS). I'm all for this change. > All userspaces which use > this information somehow should already contain some workaround for this > case. (maybe it's a rare one and nobody hit it yet or maybe there are no > userspaces using KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS for anything besides complaining -- > like QEMU). > > 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. > > which I'm keen on avoiding. I'd rather have the kvm and !kvm cases > > return the same thing. > > Forgive me my (ARM?) ignorance but what would it be then? If we go for > min(num_online_cpus(), kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus()) in both cases, cat > this can still go above KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS after vGIC is created? "min(num_online_cpus(), kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus())" is probably the right thing in all cases. Yes, KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS will keep reporting more than the VM can actually support. But that's why we have KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS, which tells you now many vcpus you can create for a given configuration. This shows how useless KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS is, and I wouldn't mind a documentation patch stating this. 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: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, 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: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 14:02:03 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <87k0hd8obo.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <875ysxg0s1.fsf@redhat.com> On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 09:51:10 +0000, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote: > > Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> writes: > > > Hi Vitaly, > > > > On 2021-11-11 16:27, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > >> It doesn't make sense to return the recommended maximum number of > >> vCPUs which exceeds the maximum possible number of vCPUs. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> > >> --- > >> arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 7 ++++++- > >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c > >> index 7838e9fb693e..391dc7a921d5 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c > >> @@ -223,7 +223,12 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, > >> long ext) > >> r = 1; > >> break; > >> case KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS: > >> - r = num_online_cpus(); > >> + if (kvm) > >> + r = min_t(unsigned int, num_online_cpus(), > >> + kvm->arch.max_vcpus); > >> + else > >> + r = min_t(unsigned int, num_online_cpus(), > >> + kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus()); > >> break; > >> case KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS: > >> case KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID: > > > > This looks odd. This means that depending on the phase userspace is > > in while initialising the VM, KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS can return one thing > > or the other. > > > > For example, I create a VM on a 32 CPU system, NR_VCPUS says 32. > > I create a GICv2 interrupt controller, it now says 8. > > > > That's a change in behaviour that is visible by userspace > > Yes, I realize this is a userspace visible change. The reason I suggest > it is that logically, it seems very odd that the maximum recommended > number of vCPUs (KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS) can be higher, than the maximum > supported number of vCPUs (KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS). I'm all for this change. > All userspaces which use > this information somehow should already contain some workaround for this > case. (maybe it's a rare one and nobody hit it yet or maybe there are no > userspaces using KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS for anything besides complaining -- > like QEMU). > > 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. > > which I'm keen on avoiding. I'd rather have the kvm and !kvm cases > > return the same thing. > > Forgive me my (ARM?) ignorance but what would it be then? If we go for > min(num_online_cpus(), kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus()) in both cases, cat > this can still go above KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS after vGIC is created? "min(num_online_cpus(), kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus())" is probably the right thing in all cases. Yes, KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS will keep reporting more than the VM can actually support. But that's why we have KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS, which tells you now many vcpus you can create for a given configuration. This shows how useless KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS is, and I wouldn't mind a documentation patch stating this. 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:[~2021-11-12 14:02 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 [this message] 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 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=87k0hd8obo.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.