On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 05:22:26PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 05:41:18PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 01:47:26PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:55:17AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:22:09AM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: > > > > > > > [1] Actually, until 972fc544b6034a in uq/master is merged there won't be > > > > > > > any warnings either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > 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 <asm/asm.h> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #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? > > > > > > > > > > I'll send a v2 with this change. > > > > > > > > > > I thought a bit about hotplug, and thus using num_possible_cpus() > > > > > instead, but then decided it made more sense to stick to what's online now > > > > > for the recommended number. It's just a recommendation anyway. So as long > > > > > as KVM_MAX_VCPUS is >= num_possible_cpus(), then one can still configure > > > > > more vcpus to count for all hotplugable cpus, if they wish. > > > > > > > > > It is just recommended, but we do warn about it, so it is user visible. > > > > Well, the whole point of it existence is to be user visible ;). If user > > > > creates a guest with max cpus greater than current number if online > > > > cpus, taking into account feature grows, he will get a warning, but we > > > > should not warn about it. > > > > > > Even it if means the user may end up running, e.g. 128 vcpus on 96 pcpus > > > indefinitely? I'd rather warn about it, which could remind them to offline > > > 32 vcpus for the time being. > > But there are other means to detect number of online cpus: > > sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN). Actually you can determine number of > > possible cpus too with _SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF, so returning those values > > as KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS does not provide any additional information. What > > if QEMU process is bound to two cores on 64 core host, do you want to > > warn if qemu is created with more then 2 vcpus in such case? You can do > > that too with pthread_setaffinity_np(). > > > > > Although, as we're just discussing when or > > > when not to output a warning, then I'm not really stressed about it either > > > way. I can certainly change this to num_possible_cpus(), if all are in > > > agreement that that is a better recommendation. > > > > > With this patch we only reduce information available to userspace. QEMU > > can already obtain all the information it needs to produce meaningful > > warning. > > All good points. We're still left with the fact that KVM_CAP_NR_VCPU > currently returns a distro-specific number though, which can only be > modified by changing a constant embedded in the source. So I still believe > that a config option is in order, but now you're convincing me that the > option should adjust KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS instead. The default should also > remain distro-neutral, so I vote 255. We'd then change the defines to be > > #define KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS CONFIG_KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS > #define KVM_MAX_VCPUS KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS > So you make KVM_MAX_VCPUS same as KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS, what's the point to have both then? KVM_MAX_VCPUS is max number of cpu that KVM supports because of architectural and/or implementation reasons. Current maximum is 255 because this is what X2APIC supports without interrupt remapping and we cannot grow this number without additional coding. KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS is the number we (upstream) feel single VM can safely scale to, the feeling is backed up by some amount of testing of course. It may make sense for downstream to change this value, but if they want to lower it I'd rather get bug reports from them that we are not as scalable as we claim, and if they want to make it large I want to hear about their successful testing too. > distros can then configure something lower than 255 (160), and developers > can configure anything they want. Neither will create a warning gap unless > the developer manually changes the KVM_MAX_VCPUS define to create one. > As I said in other email KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS/KVM_MAX_VCPUS distinction was introduce precisely to avoid recompilation requirements. Not everyone who is interested in running VM with 255 vcpus want to recompile the kernel or have permission to do so. -- Gleb. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
