From: Christoffer Dall <cdall@linaro.org>
To: Linu Cherian <linucherian@gmail.com>
Cc: sunil.goutham@cavium.com, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
Linu Cherian <linu.cherian@cavium.com>,
pbonzini@redhat.com, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] KVM: arm64: Increase number of user memslots to 508
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 13:29:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170302122906.GJ1409@cbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGOz-0bKYbVB_Zu1J+fCnQ=icK9yNHjXjh_hBxj4AjATw7cEXg@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 12:36:58PM +0530, Linu Cherian wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Christoffer Dall <cdall@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 12:45:41PM +0530, linucherian@gmail.com wrote:
> >> From: Linu Cherian <linu.cherian@cavium.com>
> >>
> >> Having only 32 memslots is a real constraint for the maximum
> >> number of PCI devices that can be assigned to a single guest.
> >> Assuming each PCI device/virtual function having two memory BAR
> >> regions, we could assign only 15 devices/virtual functions to a
> >> guest.
> >>
> >> Hence increase KVM_USER_MEM_SLOTS to 508, so that KVM_MEM_SLOTS_NUM is
> >> 512 as done in other archs like x86 and powerpc.
> >
> > Actually on powerpc they just define KVM_USER_MEM_SLOTS as 512 directly.
> >
> > On x86 they define them as 509 and have 3 private mem slots.
> >
> > I don't understand the difference and as far as I can tell we don't have
> > any private memslots on arm/arm64, so this is just weird to me.
> >
>
> Since the KVM_PRIVATE_MEM_SLOTS was already defined as 4, just kept
> it untouched. Should we remove this and keep KVM_USER_MEM_SLOTS as 512 ?
Do we have any use for KVM_PRIVATE_MEM_SLOTSA being 4? I can't seem to
see this.
I think we should either get rid of the definition or at least make sure
we understand why we're doing things this way.
Thanks,
-Christoffer
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: cdall@linaro.org (Christoffer Dall)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH V2 2/2] KVM: arm64: Increase number of user memslots to 508
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 13:29:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170302122906.GJ1409@cbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGOz-0bKYbVB_Zu1J+fCnQ=icK9yNHjXjh_hBxj4AjATw7cEXg@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 12:36:58PM +0530, Linu Cherian wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Christoffer Dall <cdall@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 12:45:41PM +0530, linucherian at gmail.com wrote:
> >> From: Linu Cherian <linu.cherian@cavium.com>
> >>
> >> Having only 32 memslots is a real constraint for the maximum
> >> number of PCI devices that can be assigned to a single guest.
> >> Assuming each PCI device/virtual function having two memory BAR
> >> regions, we could assign only 15 devices/virtual functions to a
> >> guest.
> >>
> >> Hence increase KVM_USER_MEM_SLOTS to 508, so that KVM_MEM_SLOTS_NUM is
> >> 512 as done in other archs like x86 and powerpc.
> >
> > Actually on powerpc they just define KVM_USER_MEM_SLOTS as 512 directly.
> >
> > On x86 they define them as 509 and have 3 private mem slots.
> >
> > I don't understand the difference and as far as I can tell we don't have
> > any private memslots on arm/arm64, so this is just weird to me.
> >
>
> Since the KVM_PRIVATE_MEM_SLOTS was already defined as 4, just kept
> it untouched. Should we remove this and keep KVM_USER_MEM_SLOTS as 512 ?
Do we have any use for KVM_PRIVATE_MEM_SLOTSA being 4? I can't seem to
see this.
I think we should either get rid of the definition or at least make sure
we understand why we're doing things this way.
Thanks,
-Christoffer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-02 12:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-08 7:15 [PATCH V2 0/2] KVM: arm64: Increase number of user memslots linucherian
2017-02-08 7:15 ` linucherian at gmail.com
2017-02-08 7:15 ` [PATCH V2 1/2] KVM: arm/arm64: Enable KVM_CAP_NR_MEMSLOTS on arm/arm64 linucherian
2017-02-08 7:15 ` linucherian at gmail.com
2017-02-23 10:10 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-02-23 10:10 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-02-26 4:30 ` Linu Cherian
2017-02-26 4:30 ` Linu Cherian
2017-02-08 7:15 ` [PATCH V2 2/2] KVM: arm64: Increase number of user memslots to 508 linucherian
2017-02-08 7:15 ` linucherian at gmail.com
2017-02-23 10:14 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-02-23 10:14 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-02-26 7:06 ` Linu Cherian
2017-02-26 7:06 ` Linu Cherian
2017-03-02 12:29 ` Christoffer Dall [this message]
2017-03-02 12:29 ` Christoffer Dall
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170302122906.GJ1409@cbox \
--to=cdall@linaro.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linu.cherian@cavium.com \
--cc=linucherian@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=sunil.goutham@cavium.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.