Re: [RFC 2/4] tuntap: Publish tuntap maximum number of queues as module_param

Pankaj Gupta
2014-08-22T11:52:34Z

>
> On 08/20/2014 07:17 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 12:58:17PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> > Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 03:37:18PM CEST, pagupta@redhat.com wrote:
> >>> > > This patch publishes maximum number of tun/tap queues allocated as a
> >>> > > read_only module parameter which a user space application like
> >>> > > libvirt
> >>> > > can make use of to limit maximum number of queues. Value of read_only
> >>> > > module parameter can be writable only at module load time. If no
> >>> > > value is set
> >>> > > at module load time a default value 256 is used which is equal to
> >>> > > maximum number
> >>> > > of vCPUS allowed by KVM.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Administrator can specify maximum number of queues only at the driver
> >>> > > module load time.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >Signed-off-by: Pankaj Gupta <pagupta@redhat.com>
> >>> > >---
> >>> > > drivers/net/tun.c | 13 +++++++++++--
> >>> > > 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>> > >
> >>> > >diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
> >>> > >index acaaf67..1f518e2 100644
> >>> > >--- a/drivers/net/tun.c
> >>> > >+++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
> >>> > >@@ -119,6 +119,9 @@ struct tap_filter {
> >>> > >
> >>> > > #define TUN_FLOW_EXPIRE (3 * HZ)
> >>> > >
> >>> > >+static int max_tap_queues = MAX_TAP_QUEUES;
> >>> > >+module_param(max_tap_queues, int, S_IRUGO);
> >> >
> >> > Please do not introduce new module paramaters. Please other ways to
> >> > interchange values with userspace.
> > I suggested this initially, but thinking more about it, I agree.
> >
> > It's a global limit (necessary to limit memory utilization by
> > userspace), but it should be possible to change it
> > after module load.
>
> How about pass this limit through ifr during TUNSETIFF, then
> alloc_netdev_mq() can use this limit.

Any other ideas/comments from the experts. Or shall I re-repost other patches
in the series except this patch until we agree on one.

>