From:   Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>,
        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 1/5] KVM: arm64: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS
In-Reply-To: <ad3534bc-fe3a-55f5-b022-4dbec5f29798@redhat.com>
References: <20211111162746.100598-1-vkuznets@redhat.com>
 <20211111162746.100598-2-vkuznets@redhat.com>
 <a5cdff6878b7157587e92ebe4d5af362@kernel.org> <875ysxg0s1.fsf@redhat.com>
 <87k0hd8obo.wl-maz@kernel.org>
 <ad3534bc-fe3a-55f5-b022-4dbec5f29798@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Nov 2021 14:23:25 +0100
Message-ID: <87y25onsj6.fsf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> writes:

> On 11/12/21 15:02, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> I'd like KVM to be consistent across architectures and have the same
>>> (similar) meaning for KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS.
>> Sure, but this is a pretty useless piece of information anyway. As
>> Andrew pointed out, the information is available somewhere else, and
>> all we need to do is to cap it to the number of supported vcpus, which
>> is effectively a KVM limitation.
>> 
>> Also, we are talking about representing the architecture to userspace.
>> No amount of massaging is going to make an arm64 box look like an x86.
>
> Not sure what you mean?  The API is about providing a piece of 
> information independent of the architecture, while catering for a ppc 
> weirdness.  Yes it's mostly useless if you don't care about ppc, but 
> it's not about making arm64 look like x86 or ppc; it's about not having 
> to special case ppc in userspace.
>
> If anything, if KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS returns the same for kvm and !kvm, then 
> *that* is making an arm64 box look like an x86.  On ARM the max vCPUs 
> depends on VM's GIC configuration, so KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS should take that 
> into account.

(I'm about to send v2 as we have s390 sorted out.)

So what do we decide about ARM? 
- Current approach (kvm->arch.max_vcpus/kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus()
 depending on 'if (kvm)') - that would be my preference.
- Always kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus to make the output independent on 'if
 (kvm)'.
- keep the status quo (drop the patch).

Please advise)

-- 
Vitaly