On 18.11.21 00:46, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 16.11.21 15:10, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> Today the maximum vcpu-id of a kvm guest's vcpu on x86 systems is set
>>> via a #define in a header file.
>>>
>>> In order to support higher vcpu-ids without generally increasing the
>>> memory consumption of guests on the host (some guest structures contain
>>> arrays sized by KVM_MAX_VCPU_IDS) add a boot parameter for adding some
>>> bits to the vcpu-id. Additional bits are needed as the vcpu-id is
>>> constructed via bit-wise concatenation of socket-id, core-id, etc.
>>> As those ids maximum values are not always a power of 2, the vcpu-ids
>>> are sparse.
>>>
>>> The additional number of bits needed is basically the number of
>>> topology levels with a non-power-of-2 maximum value, excluding the top
>>> most level.
>>>
>>> The default value of the new parameter will be 2 in order to support
>>> today's possible topologies. The special value of -1 will use the
>>> number of bits needed for a guest with the current host's topology.
>>>
>>> Calculating the maximum vcpu-id dynamically requires to allocate the
>>> arrays using KVM_MAX_VCPU_IDS as the size dynamically.
>>>
>>> Signed-of-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
>>
>> Just thought about vcpu-ids a little bit more.
>>
>> It would be possible to replace the topology games completely by an
>> arbitrary rather high vcpu-id limit (65536?) and to allocate the memory
>> depending on the max vcpu-id just as needed.
>>
>> Right now the only vcpu-id dependent memory is for the ioapic consisting
>> of a vcpu-id indexed bitmap and a vcpu-id indexed byte array (vectors).
>>
>> We could start with a minimal size when setting up an ioapic and extend
>> the areas in case a new vcpu created would introduce a vcpu-id outside
>> the currently allocated memory. Both arrays are protected by the ioapic
>> specific lock (at least I couldn't spot any unprotected usage when
>> looking briefly into the code), so reallocating those arrays shouldn't
>> be hard. In case of ENOMEM the related vcpu creation would just fail.
>>
>> Thoughts?
> 
> Why not have userspace state the max vcpu_id it intends to creates on a per-VM
> basis?  Same end result, but doesn't require the complexity of reallocating the
> I/O APIC stuff.
> 

And if the userspace doesn't do it (like today)?


Juergen