Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756946Ab3IOJDZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Sep 2013 05:03:25 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59885 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753563Ab3IOJDY (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Sep 2013 05:03:24 -0400 Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 12:03:22 +0300 From: Gleb Natapov To: Andrew Jones Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: kvm: remove KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS Message-ID: <20130915090322.GV17294@redhat.com> References: <1379161011-28239-1-git-send-email-drjones@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1379161011-28239-1-git-send-email-drjones@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2797 Lines: 67 On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 02:16:51PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: > This patch removes KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS and uses num_online_cpus() for > KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS instead, as ARM does. While the API doc simply says > KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS should return the recommended maximum number of vcpus, > it has been returning KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS, which was defined as the > maximum tested number of vcpus. As that concept could be > distro-specific, this patch uses the other recommended maximum, the > number of physical cpus, as we never recommend configuring a guest that > has more vcpus than the host has pcpus. Of course a guest can always > still be configured with up to KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS though anyway. > > I've put RFC on this patch because I'm not sure if there are any gotchas > lurking with this change. The change now means hosts no longer return > the same number for KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS, and that number is likely going to > generally be quite a bit less than what KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS was (160). I > can't think of anything other than generating more warnings[1] from qemu > with guests that configure more vcpus than pcpus though. > Another gotcha is that on a host with more then 160 cpus recommended value will grow which is not a good idea without appropriate testing. > [1] Actually, until 972fc544b6034a in uq/master is merged there won't be > any warnings either. > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones > --- > arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 - > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h > index c76ff74a98f2e..9236c63315a9b 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h > @@ -32,7 +32,6 @@ > #include > > #define KVM_MAX_VCPUS 255 > -#define KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS 160 > #define KVM_USER_MEM_SLOTS 125 > /* memory slots that are not exposed to userspace */ > #define KVM_PRIVATE_MEM_SLOTS 3 > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c > index e5ca72a5cdb6d..d9d3e2ed68ee9 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c > @@ -2604,7 +2604,7 @@ int kvm_dev_ioctl_check_extension(long ext) > r = !kvm_x86_ops->cpu_has_accelerated_tpr(); > break; > case KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS: > - r = KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS; > + r = min(num_online_cpus(), KVM_MAX_VCPUS); s/KVM_MAX_VCPUS/KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS/. Also what about hotplug cpus? > break; > case KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS: > r = KVM_MAX_VCPUS; > -- > 1.8.1.4 -- Gleb. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/