[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130916082820.GB2101@hawk.usersys.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 10:28:20 +0200
From: Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: kvm: introduce CONFIG_KVM_MAX_VCPUS
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 12:08:38PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 02:18:49PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > Take CONFIG_KVM_MAX_VCPUS from arm32, but set the default to 255.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 5 +++--
> > arch/x86/kvm/Kconfig | 10 ++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > index c76ff74a98f2e..e7e9b523a8f7e 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -31,8 +31,9 @@
> > #include <asm/msr-index.h>
> > #include <asm/asm.h>
> >
> > -#define KVM_MAX_VCPUS 255
> > -#define KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS 160
> > +#define KVM_MAX_VCPUS CONFIG_KVM_MAX_VCPUS
> > +#define KVM_SOFT_MAX_VCPUS min(160, KVM_MAX_VCPUS)
> > +
> > #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/Kconfig b/arch/x86/kvm/Kconfig
> > index a47a3e54b964b..e9532c33527ee 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/Kconfig
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/Kconfig
> > @@ -52,6 +52,16 @@ config KVM
> >
> > If unsure, say N.
> >
> > +config KVM_MAX_VCPUS
> > + int "Number maximum supported virtual CPUs per VM"
> > + depends on KVM
> > + default 255
> > + help
> > + Static number of max supported virtual CPUs per VM.
> > +
> > + Set to a lower number to save some resources. Set to a higher
> > + number to test scalability.
> > +
> Maximum this can save is around 2K per VM. This is pretty insignificant
> considering overall memory footprint even smallest VM has.
Should I reword this, dropping all 'save resources' verbiage, in order to
avoid sending a message that this option can affect resource consumption?
Or just leave it as it is, because even though it's insignificant, it's
still true and balances out the 'Set to a higher' part.
drew
>
> > config KVM_INTEL
> > tristate "KVM for Intel processors support"
> > depends on KVM
> > --
> > 1.8.1.4
>
> --
> Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists