From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Vrabel Subject: Re: [PATCHv1] xen: increase default number of PIRQs for hardware domains Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 10:25:26 +0000 Message-ID: <54803696.5060004@citrix.com> References: <1417622660-23912-1-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com> <20141203203825.GB8802@laptop.dumpdata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1XwTbH-0004SE-C2 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 10:25:31 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20141203203825.GB8802@laptop.dumpdata.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Cc: Keir Fraser , Ian Campbell , Tim Deegan , Ian Jackson , Jan Beulich , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 03/12/14 20:38, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 04:04:20PM +0000, David Vrabel wrote: >> The default limit for the number of PIRQs for hardware domains (dom0) >> is not sufficient for some (x86) systems. >> >> Since the pirq structures are individually and dynamically allocated, >> the limit for hardware domains may be increased to the number of >> possible IRQs. > > Why not also expand the number for the guest? Because the default doesn't need to be increased for domUs at this time and I did not want to audit the code to make sure a guest can't (for example) repeatedly map PIRQs, using up all pirqs/irqs in Xen. David