On 5/14/19 5:30 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2019 11:27:32 +0200
David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 14.05.19 11:25, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
On 14.05.19 11:23, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
On 14.05.19 11:20, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 14.05.19 11:10, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
On 14.05.19 10:59, David Hildenbrand wrote:
We can
1. Fail to start with #cpus > 240 when diag318=on
2. Remove the error once we support more than one SCLP response page
Or
b
1. Allow to start with #cpus > 240 when diag318=on, but indicate only
240 CPUs via SCLP
2. Print a warning
3. Remove the restriction and the warning once we support more than one
SCLP response page
While I prefer the second approach (similar to defining zPCI devices
without zpci=on), I could also live with the first approach.
I prefer approach 1.
Isn't approach #2 what we discussed (limiting sclp, but of course to 247
CPUs), but with an additional warning? I'm confused.
Different numbering interpretion. I was talking about 1 = "Allow to start with
#cpus > 240 when diag318=on, but indicate only
240 CPUs via SCLP"
So yes, variant 2 when I use your numbering. The only question is: do we need
a warning? It probably does not hurt.
After all, we are talking about 1 VCPU that the guest can only use by
indirect probing ... I leave that up to Collin :)
I'd prefer a warning... even if it is a corner case, I think it's
better to be explicit instead of silent.
Thanks for the discussion. I'll implement diag318 as a CPU feature again
and adjust the max_cpu handling (to 247 now instead of 240).
Question: should diag318 be enabled by default for current CPU models?
What should we do in the case where diag318=on but KVM does not support
handling?
I am not familiar with how close QEMU and KVM versions stay in sync.
