[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
- keep the status quo (drop the patch).

Please advise)


[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [Linux Virtualization]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Video]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Big List of Linux Books]

  Powered by Linux