[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20211116163443.88707-2-vkuznets@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 17:34:38 +0100
From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
To: kvm@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@...hat.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@...il.com>,
Anup Patel <anup.patel@....com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/6] KVM: arm64: Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus()
Generally, it doesn't make sense to return the recommended maximum number
of vCPUs which exceeds the maximum possible number of vCPUs.
Note: ARM64 is special as the value returned by KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS differs
depending on whether it is a system-wide ioctl or a per-VM one. Previously,
KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS didn't have this difference and it seems preferable to
keep the status quo. Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus()
which is what gets returned by system-wide KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS.
Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
---
arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 9 ++++++++-
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
index 7838e9fb693e..0690c76def5d 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
@@ -223,7 +223,14 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, long ext)
r = 1;
break;
case KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS:
- r = num_online_cpus();
+ /*
+ * ARM64 treats KVM_CAP_NR_CPUS differently from all other
+ * architectures, as it does not always bound it to
+ * num_online_cpus(). It should not matter much because this
+ * is just an advisory value.
+ */
+ r = min_t(unsigned int, num_online_cpus(),
+ kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus());
break;
case KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS:
case KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID:
--
2.33.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists