From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make virtio devices multi-function
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:27:14 +0300
Message-ID: <480E11E2.3040706@qumranet.com>
References: <1208873728-10194-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>
	<480DF70D.8010609@qumranet.com> <480DFA3B.2000401@codemonkey.ws>
	<480DFB87.6090608@qumranet.com> <20080422153602.GA15542@dmt>
	<480E0FC0.4000401@codemonkey.ws>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Return-path: <kvm-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net>
In-Reply-To: <480E0FC0.4000401@codemonkey.ws>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel>,
	<mailto:kvm-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=kvm-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:kvm-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel>,
	<mailto:kvm-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
Sender: kvm-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net
Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
> I think we need to decide what we want to target in terms of upper 
> limits.
>
> With a bridge or two, we can probably easily do 128.
>
> If we really want to push things, I think we should do a PCI based 
> virtio controller.  I doubt a large number of PCI devices is ever 
> going to perform very well b/c of interrupt sharing and some of the 
> assumptions in virtio_pci.
>
> If we implement a controller, we can use a single interrupt, but 
> multiplex multiple notifications on that single interrupt.  We can 
> also be more aggressive about using shared memory instead of PCI 
> config space which would reduce the overall number of exits.
>
> We could easily support a very large number of devices this way.  But 
> again, what do we want to target for now? 

I think that for networking we should keep things as is.  I don't see 
anybody using 100 virtual NICs.

For mass storage, we should follow the SCSI model with a single device 
serving multiple disks, similar to what you suggest.  Not sure if the 
device should have a single queue or one queue per disk.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference 
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. 
Use priority code J8TL2D2. 
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone