Message-ID: <b581f056-e7ea-befa-8c13-50644105c042@de.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Nov 2021 13:16:10 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.2.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] KVM: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS and
 re-purpose it on x86
Content-Language: en-US
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
References: <20211111162746.100598-1-vkuznets@redhat.com>
 <4a3c7be7-12fa-6e47-64eb-02e6c5be5dbc@redhat.com>
From:   Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4a3c7be7-12fa-6e47-64eb-02e6c5be5dbc@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

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.

will do. (Sorry I was OOO the last days).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Paolo
> 
>> Vitaly Kuznetsov (5):
>>    KVM: arm64: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS
>>    KVM: MIPS: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS
>>    KVM: PPC: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS
>>    KVM: RISC-V: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS
>>    KVM: x86: Drop arbitraty KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS
>>
>>   arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c            | 7 ++++++-
>>   arch/mips/kvm/mips.c            | 2 +-
>>   arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c      | 4 ++--
>>   arch/riscv/kvm/vm.c             | 2 +-
>>   arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 -
>>   arch/x86/kvm/x86.c              | 2 +-
>>   6 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>