From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, 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 0/5] KVM: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS and re-purpose it on x86
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 13:33:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ecd55383-7089-b3cd-30cc-3f9feb7eadb4@de.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4a3c7be7-12fa-6e47-64eb-02e6c5be5dbc@redhat.com>
Am 11.11.21 um 17:32 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> On 11/11/21 17:27, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> This is a comtinuation of "KVM: x86: Drop arbitraty KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS"
>> (https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20211111134733.86601-1-vkuznets@redhat.com/)
>> work.
>>
>> 1) Enforce KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS <= KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS rule on all
>> architectures. [Sean Christopherson]
>> 2) Make KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS return num_online_cpus() and not an arbitrary
>> value of '710' on x86.
>>
>> Everything but x86 was only 'eyeball tested', the change is trivial
>> but sorry in advance if I screwed up)
>
> Christian, can you look at this for s390? Returning a fixed value seems wrong for KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS.
If we talk about recommended number, then num_online_cpus() also seems to make sense on s390 so
if you change that for s390 as well I can ACK this.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, 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 0/5] KVM: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS and re-purpose it on x86
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 13:33:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ecd55383-7089-b3cd-30cc-3f9feb7eadb4@de.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4a3c7be7-12fa-6e47-64eb-02e6c5be5dbc@redhat.com>
Am 11.11.21 um 17:32 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> On 11/11/21 17:27, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> This is a comtinuation of "KVM: x86: Drop arbitraty KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS"
>> (https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20211111134733.86601-1-vkuznets@redhat.com/)
>> work.
>>
>> 1) Enforce KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS <= KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS rule on all
>> architectures. [Sean Christopherson]
>> 2) Make KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS return num_online_cpus() and not an arbitrary
>> value of '710' on x86.
>>
>> Everything but x86 was only 'eyeball tested', the change is trivial
>> but sorry in advance if I screwed up)
>
> Christian, can you look at this for s390? Returning a fixed value seems wrong for KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS.
If we talk about recommended number, then num_online_cpus() also seems to make sense on s390 so
if you change that for s390 as well I can ACK this.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, 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 0/5] KVM: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS and re-purpose it on x86
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 12:33:56 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ecd55383-7089-b3cd-30cc-3f9feb7eadb4@de.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4a3c7be7-12fa-6e47-64eb-02e6c5be5dbc@redhat.com>
Am 11.11.21 um 17:32 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> On 11/11/21 17:27, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> This is a comtinuation of "KVM: x86: Drop arbitraty KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS"
>> (https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20211111134733.86601-1-vkuznets@redhat.com/)
>> work.
>>
>> 1) Enforce KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS <= KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS rule on all
>> architectures. [Sean Christopherson]
>> 2) Make KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS return num_online_cpus() and not an arbitrary
>> value of '710' on x86.
>>
>> Everything but x86 was only 'eyeball tested', the change is trivial
>> but sorry in advance if I screwed up)
>
> Christian, can you look at this for s390? Returning a fixed value seems wrong for KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS.
If we talk about recommended number, then num_online_cpus() also seems to make sense on s390 so
if you change that for s390 as well I can ACK this.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-15 12:35 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
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 [this message]
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=ecd55383-7089-b3cd-30cc-3f9feb7eadb4@de.ibm.com \
--to=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--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=maz@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: link
Be 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.