From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: Unable to create more than 1 guest virtio-net device using vhost-net backend Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:58:29 +0200 Message-ID: <4BA609E5.40504@redhat.com> References: <1269037167.5127.12.camel@w-sridhar.beaverton.ibm.com> <20100321095544.GA6443@redhat.com> <4BA5F0D5.6020801@redhat.com> <20100321101527.GH6443@redhat.com> <4BA5F50B.8080302@redhat.com> <20100321113443.GB12339@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Sridhar Samudrala , netdev , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , gleb@redhat.com To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100321113443.GB12339@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 03/21/2010 01:34 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 12:29:31PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> On 03/21/2010 12:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> >>>>> Nothing easy that I can see. Each device needs 2 of these. Avi, Gleb, >>>>> any objections to increasing the limit to say 16? That would give us >>>>> 5 more devices to the limit of 6 per guest. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Increase it to 200, then. >>>> >>>> >>> OK. I think we'll also need a smarter allocator >>> than bus->dev_count++ than we now have. Right? >>> >>> >> No, why? >> > We'll run into problems if devices are created/removed in random order, > won't we? > unregister_dev() takes care of it. >> Eventually we'll want faster scanning than the linear search we employ >> now, though. >> > Yes I suspect with 200 entries we will :). Let's just make it 16 for > now? > Let's make it 200 and fix the performance problems later. Making it 16 is just asking for trouble. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function