From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:36180) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hEqrM-0004AD-Pe for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 03:44:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hEqrL-0004QU-Pp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 03:44:28 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37120) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hEqrL-0004QG-It for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 03:44:27 -0400 References: <20190411175931.29235-1-brijesh.singh@amd.com> <61c415de-ac47-9818-2b06-b9e46445833f@redhat.com> <7d449ae2-6762-97c2-4930-358f34f3ef4b@amd.com> From: Laszlo Ersek Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 09:44:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <7d449ae2-6762-97c2-4930-358f34f3ef4b@amd.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target/i386: sev: add 'sev-max-guests' field to 'query-sev-capabilities' List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Singh, Brijesh" , Erik Skultety Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , Markus Armbruster , Paolo Bonzini On 04/11/19 21:02, Singh, Brijesh wrote: >=20 >=20 > On 4/11/19 1:10 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> On 04/11/19 19:59, Singh, Brijesh wrote: >>> There are limited numbers of the SEV guests that can be run concurren= tly. >>> A management applications may need to know this limit so that it can = place >>> SEV VMs on hosts which have suitable resources available. >>> >>> Currently, this limit is not exposed to the application. Add a new >>> 'sev-max-guest' field in the query-sev-capabilities to provide this >>> information. >>> >>> Cc: Paolo Bonzini >>> Cc: Markus Armbruster >>> Cc: Eric Blake >>> Cc: Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 >>> Cc: Laszlo Ersek >>> Cc: Erik Skultety >>> Signed-off-by: Brijesh Singh >>> --- >>> qapi/target.json | 6 ++++-- >>> target/i386/sev.c | 6 ++++-- >>> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/qapi/target.json b/qapi/target.json >>> index 1d4d54b600..b45121d30b 100644 >>> --- a/qapi/target.json >>> +++ b/qapi/target.json >>> @@ -183,7 +183,8 @@ >>> 'data': { 'pdh': 'str', >>> 'cert-chain': 'str', >>> 'cbitpos': 'int', >>> - 'reduced-phys-bits': 'int'}, >>> + 'reduced-phys-bits': 'int', >>> + 'sev-max-guests': 'int'}, >> >> Would it be useful to make this new field optional? E.g. if it was >> missing, libvirtd could assume "no limit". >> >=20 > I am not sure if we need to make this field optional - mainly because > in SEV context hardware will always have some limits (at least in > foreseeable future). The architecture provides us a CPUID to query > this capabilities so I am assuming that future CPUs will populate > some values in it. Yup, sounds reasonable. Please resubmit with Daniel's request addressed and I'll be happy to R-b. Erik: can you please ACK too? Thanks! Laszlo >> Again, not sure if that's useful, but it's not hard to introduce the >> field as optional now. Removing mandatory fields later is impossible. >> >=20 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=-6.9 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 E32BCC10F0E for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 07:45:18 +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 ADB652064A for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 07:45:18 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org ADB652064A 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]:60353 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hEqsA-0004X7-0q for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 03:45:18 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:36180) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hEqrM-0004AD-Pe for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 03:44:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hEqrL-0004QU-Pp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 03:44:28 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37120) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hEqrL-0004QG-It for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 03:44:27 -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 E12803007C2A; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 07:44:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-120-65.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.120.65]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 864A05D6A6; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 07:44:23 +0000 (UTC) To: "Singh, Brijesh" , Erik Skultety References: <20190411175931.29235-1-brijesh.singh@amd.com> <61c415de-ac47-9818-2b06-b9e46445833f@redhat.com> <7d449ae2-6762-97c2-4930-358f34f3ef4b@amd.com> From: Laszlo Ersek Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 09:44:22 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <7d449ae2-6762-97c2-4930-358f34f3ef4b@amd.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 [10.5.110.40]); Fri, 12 Apr 2019 07:44:26 +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] target/i386: sev: add 'sev-max-guests' field to 'query-sev-capabilities' 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: Paolo Bonzini , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , Markus Armbruster Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Message-ID: <20190412074422.ZZ4F2jKTJmbWtrbtY6XmJkwOe93N3fGYb8H7oaCmITc@z> On 04/11/19 21:02, Singh, Brijesh wrote: >=20 >=20 > On 4/11/19 1:10 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> On 04/11/19 19:59, Singh, Brijesh wrote: >>> There are limited numbers of the SEV guests that can be run concurren= tly. >>> A management applications may need to know this limit so that it can = place >>> SEV VMs on hosts which have suitable resources available. >>> >>> Currently, this limit is not exposed to the application. Add a new >>> 'sev-max-guest' field in the query-sev-capabilities to provide this >>> information. >>> >>> Cc: Paolo Bonzini >>> Cc: Markus Armbruster >>> Cc: Eric Blake >>> Cc: Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 >>> Cc: Laszlo Ersek >>> Cc: Erik Skultety >>> Signed-off-by: Brijesh Singh >>> --- >>> qapi/target.json | 6 ++++-- >>> target/i386/sev.c | 6 ++++-- >>> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/qapi/target.json b/qapi/target.json >>> index 1d4d54b600..b45121d30b 100644 >>> --- a/qapi/target.json >>> +++ b/qapi/target.json >>> @@ -183,7 +183,8 @@ >>> 'data': { 'pdh': 'str', >>> 'cert-chain': 'str', >>> 'cbitpos': 'int', >>> - 'reduced-phys-bits': 'int'}, >>> + 'reduced-phys-bits': 'int', >>> + 'sev-max-guests': 'int'}, >> >> Would it be useful to make this new field optional? E.g. if it was >> missing, libvirtd could assume "no limit". >> >=20 > I am not sure if we need to make this field optional - mainly because > in SEV context hardware will always have some limits (at least in > foreseeable future). The architecture provides us a CPUID to query > this capabilities so I am assuming that future CPUs will populate > some values in it. Yup, sounds reasonable. Please resubmit with Daniel's request addressed and I'll be happy to R-b. Erik: can you please ACK too? Thanks! Laszlo >> Again, not sure if that's useful, but it's not hard to introduce the >> field as optional now. Removing mandatory fields later is impossible. >> >=20