From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB84C433E0 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 10:48:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F8D023133 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 10:48:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2404180AbhASKeQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 05:34:16 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:41372 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2387682AbhASKND (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 05:13:03 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0187473.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 10JA1XXt151732; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 05:12:05 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=subject : to : cc : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=IHF2oxG8Si6P7YX0CkWlhBKD7mnMBgPLLDeRApyFRIM=; b=PI4QZA9OT87UkSzavR2Wm1ZVYlbexLy2WrAg7JD0VWPBs1zILjhHVYX0dKVV/wdZvFC2 8uiFtcLLh43b5TuNuMVr89Wsnx8YiuZJrVvvHHVegPh6BcALm7pzMdMJpyf/CgQuFu1x 9mCkbPjks+BjQq3vHDWZ4XSLUy69l/VD0aPmWnpExba0r8cyfh/a9Zw74r0RuEKrqrXc btSvB6oi2Q964lz1nS35Yt7ASjf9xFNAmFxV8+HdqHC8y1dsEi/THb1cc/4AfqhPaher ywbhJo0S4Gz0Ip3eyRZvaKhdY6Bvxf/UcASKGJSC9pKFlynTTKL6Lsoql7cXc8p68x8x KA== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 365vx10x2u-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 05:12:05 -0500 Received: from m0187473.ppops.net (m0187473.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 10JA1hdB152471; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 05:12:04 -0500 Received: from ppma02fra.de.ibm.com (47.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.71]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 365vx10x0c-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 05:12:03 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 10JA45Ow010746; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 10:11:59 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197]) by ppma02fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 365s0e83rq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 10:11:59 +0000 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 10JABuPZ22807030 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 10:11:56 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DDA84C044; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 10:11:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A91C74C04A; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 10:11:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oc7455500831.ibm.com (unknown [9.171.35.184]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 10:11:55 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] s390: uv: Fix sysfs max number of VCPUs reporting To: Janosch Frank , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, thuth@redhat.com, david@redhat.com, imbrenda@linux.ibm.com, cohuck@redhat.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, gor@linux.ibm.com, mihajlov@linux.ibm.com References: <20210119100402.84734-1-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <20210119100402.84734-2-frankja@linux.ibm.com> From: Christian Borntraeger Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 11:11:55 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210119100402.84734-2-frankja@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343,18.0.737 definitions=2021-01-19_02:2021-01-18,2021-01-19 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 clxscore=1015 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2101190058 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 19.01.21 11:04, Janosch Frank wrote: > The number reported by the query is N-1 and I think people reading the > sysfs file would expect N instead. For users creating VMs there's no > actual difference because KVM's limit is currently below the UV's > limit. > > The naming of the field is a bit misleading. Number in this context is > used like ID and starts at 0. The query field denotes the maximum > number that can be put into the VCPU number field in the "create > secure CPU" UV call. > > Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank > Fixes: a0f60f8431999 ("s390/protvirt: Add sysfs firmware interface for Ultravisor information") > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > --- > arch/s390/boot/uv.c | 2 +- > arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h | 4 ++-- > arch/s390/kernel/uv.c | 2 +- > 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/s390/boot/uv.c b/arch/s390/boot/uv.c > index a15c033f53ca..afb721082989 100644 > --- a/arch/s390/boot/uv.c > +++ b/arch/s390/boot/uv.c > @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ void uv_query_info(void) > uv_info.guest_cpu_stor_len = uvcb.cpu_stor_len; > uv_info.max_sec_stor_addr = ALIGN(uvcb.max_guest_stor_addr, PAGE_SIZE); > uv_info.max_num_sec_conf = uvcb.max_num_sec_conf; > - uv_info.max_guest_cpus = uvcb.max_guest_cpus; > + uv_info.max_guest_cpu_id = uvcb.max_guest_cpu_num; > } > > #ifdef CONFIG_PROTECTED_VIRTUALIZATION_GUEST > diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h > index 0325fc0469b7..c484c95ea142 100644 > --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h > +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h > @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ struct uv_cb_qui { > u32 max_num_sec_conf; > u64 max_guest_stor_addr; > u8 reserved88[158 - 136]; > - u16 max_guest_cpus; > + u16 max_guest_cpu_num; I think it would read better if we name this also max_guest_cpu_id. Otherwise this looks good.