All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>,
	Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>,
	Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>,
	Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv1] xen: increase default number of PIRQs for hardware domains
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 10:28:05 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <548188B5.8010400@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54818CA5020000780004D0B2@mail.emea.novell.com>

On 05/12/14 09:44, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 03.12.14 at 17:04, <david.vrabel@citrix.com> 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.
> 
> I nevertheless disagree to moving the bound up to the Xen internal
> limit unconditionally: What use does it have to allow hwdom to use
> thousands of MSIs? If a system got that many, the main purpose of
> running Xen on it I would expect to be to hand various of the
> respective devices to guests. Hence no need for hwdom to have
> that many by default, even if this doesn't result in any extra
> resource consumption.
> 
> That said, I can see the current default of 256 being too low though.
> Quite likely in the absence of a user specified value the default
> ought to be derived from nr_irqs - nr_static_irqs rather than being
> any fixed number. Considering the default used for nr_irqs, I'd think
> along the lines of sqrt(num_present_cpus()) * NR_DYNAMIC_VECTORS
> or dom0->max_vcpus * NR_DYNAMIC_VECTORS (or the minimum of
> the two) for x86.

The reason for a non obvious default like this would need a comment and
I can't write one because I can't see a reason for it.  Perhaps if you
write a suitable comment for your preferred default I can respin this patch?

David

  reply	other threads:[~2014-12-05 10:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-12-03 16:04 [PATCHv1] xen: increase default number of PIRQs for hardware domains David Vrabel
2014-12-03 16:08 ` Andrew Cooper
2014-12-03 20:38 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2014-12-04 10:25   ` David Vrabel
2014-12-05  9:44 ` Jan Beulich
2014-12-05 10:28   ` David Vrabel [this message]
2014-12-05 12:02   ` Andrew Cooper
2014-12-05 12:19     ` Jan Beulich

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=548188B5.8010400@citrix.com \
    --to=david.vrabel@citrix.com \
    --cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=ian.campbell@citrix.com \
    --cc=ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com \
    --cc=keir@xen.org \
    --cc=tim@xen.org \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
    /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.