[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <MW5PR84MB17137745A3DD273FA2AB25679BC1A@MW5PR84MB1713.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 16:13:45 +0000
From: "Meyer, Kyle" <kyle.meyer@....com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"dave.hansen@...el.com" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"vkuznets@...hat.com" <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
"dmatlack@...gle.com" <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
"Anderson, Russ" <russ.anderson@....com>,
"Sivanich, Dimitri" <dimitri.sivanich@....com>,
"Wahl, Steve" <steve.wahl@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] KVM: x86: Add CONFIG_KVM_MAX_NR_VCPUS
> > Add a Kconfig entry to set the maximum number of vCPUs per KVM guest and
> > set the default value to 4096 when MAXSMP is enabled.
>
> I'd like to capture why the max is set to 4096, both the justification and why
> we don't want to go further at this point.
>
> If you've no objection, I'll massage the changelog to this when applying:
>
> Add a Kconfig entry to set the maximum number of vCPUs per KVM guest and
> set the default value to 4096 when MAXSMP is enabled, as there are use
> cases that want to create more than the currently allow 1024 vCPUs and
> are more than happy to eat the memory overhead.
>
> The Hyper-V TLFS doesn't allow more than 64 sparse banks, i.e. allows a
> maximum of 4096 virtual CPUs. Cap KVM's maximum number of virtual CPUs
> to 4096 to avoid exceeding Hyper-V's limit as KVM support for Hyper-V is
> unconditional, and alternatives like dynamically disabling Hyper-V
> enlightenments that rely on sparse banks would require non-trivial code
> changes.
>
> > Suggested-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Kyle Meyer <kyle.meyer@....com>
> > ---
> > v2 -> v3: Default KVM_MAX_VCPUS to 1024 when CONFIG_KVM_MAX_NR_VCPUS is not
> > defined. This prevents build failures in arch/x86/events/intel/core.c and
> > drivers/vfio/vfio_main.c when KVM is disabled.
> >
> > arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 4 ++++
> > arch/x86/kvm/Kconfig | 11 +++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > index 3bc146dfd38d..cd27e0a00765 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -39,7 +39,11 @@
> >
> > #define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_VCPU_DEBUGFS
> >
>
> And another thing I'll add if you don't object is a comment to explain that this
> is purely to play nice with CONFIG_KVM=n. And FWIW, I hope to make this go away
> entirely: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230916003118.2540661-27-seanjc@google.com
>
> /*
> * CONFIG_KVM_MAX_NR_VCPUS is defined iff CONFIG_KVM!=n, provide a dummy max if
> * KVM is disabled (arbitrarily use default from CONFIG_KVM_MAX_NR_VCPUS).
> */
>
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_MAX_NR_VCPUS
> > +#define KVM_MAX_VCPUS CONFIG_KVM_MAX_NR_VCPUS
> > +#else
> > #define KVM_MAX_VCPUS 1024
> > +#endif
> >
> > /*
> > * In x86, the VCPU ID corresponds to the APIC ID, and APIC IDs
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/Kconfig b/arch/x86/kvm/Kconfig
> > index 89ca7f4c1464..e730e8255e22 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/Kconfig
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/Kconfig
> > @@ -141,4 +141,15 @@ config KVM_XEN
> > config KVM_EXTERNAL_WRITE_TRACKING
> > bool
> >
> > +config KVM_MAX_NR_VCPUS
> > + int "Maximum number of vCPUs per KVM guest"
> > + depends on KVM
> > + range 1024 4096
> > + default 4096 if MAXSMP
> > + default 1024
> > + help
> > + Set the maximum number of vCPUs per KVM guest. Larger values will increase
> > + the memory footprint of each KVM guest, regardless of how many vCPUs are
> > + configured.
>
> Last nit, I think the last linke should be like so:
>
> the memory footprint of each KVM guest, regardless of how many vCPUs are
> created for a given VM.
>
> No need for a v4 unless you object to any of the above, I'm happt to fixup when
> applying.
LGTM. I have no objections to any of those changes. Thank you very much.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists