Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 2/2 tuntap: Increase the number of queues in tun.

[Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>]

On 12/04/2014 06:20 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:03:34AM +0008, Jason Wang wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> > >On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 12:49:37PM +0530, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
>>>> > >> Networking under kvm works best if we allocate a per-vCPU RX and TX
>>>> > >> queue in a virtual NIC. This requires a per-vCPU queue on the host
>>>> > >>side.
>>>> > >> It is now safe to increase the maximum number of queues.
>>>> > >> Preceding patche: 'net: allow large number of rx queues'
>>> > >
>>> > >s/patche/patch/
>>> > >
>>>> > >> made sure this won't cause failures due to high order memory
>>>> > >> allocations. Increase it to 256: this is the max number of vCPUs
>>>> > >> KVM supports.
>>>> > >> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Gupta <pagupta@redhat.com>
>>>> > >> Reviewed-by: David Gibson <dgibson@redhat.com>
>>> > >
>>> > >Hmm it's kind of nasty that each tun device is now using x16 memory.
>>> > >Maybe we should look at using a flex array instead, and removing the
>>> > >limitation altogether (e.g. make it INT_MAX)?
>> > 
>> > But this only happens when IFF_MULTIQUEUE were used.
> I refer to this field:
>         struct tun_file __rcu   *tfiles[MAX_TAP_QUEUES];
> if we make MAX_TAP_QUEUES 256, this will use 4K bytes,
> apparently unconditionally.
>
>

How about just allocate one tfile if IFF_MULTIQUEUE were disabled?