From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48639) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YQvYH-00078l-71 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 05:20:18 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YQvYC-00085v-8v for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 05:20:17 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46925) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YQvYC-00085q-2F for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 05:20:12 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:20:07 +0100 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20150226102007.GB24889@redhat.com> References: <1424934286-7099-1-git-send-email-jasowang@redhat.com> <1424934286-7099-9-git-send-email-jasowang@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1424934286-7099-9-git-send-email-jasowang@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V2 08/11] virtio-pci: switch to use bus specific queue limit List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jason Wang Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Anthony Liguori On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:04:43PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > Instead of depending on a macro, switch to use a bus specific queue > limit. > > Cc: Anthony Liguori > Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang > --- > hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c | 10 +++++----- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c > index 7fa8141..23c4649 100644 > --- a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c > +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c > @@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ static void virtio_pci_start_ioeventfd(VirtIOPCIProxy *proxy) > return; > } > > - for (n = 0; n < VIRTIO_PCI_QUEUE_MAX; n++) { > + for (n = 0; n < virtio_get_queue_max(vdev); n++) { > if (!virtio_queue_get_num(vdev, n)) { > continue; > } This is done on guest IO, and I think after applying the next patch which increases the number to >500 for pci, it's too much work: VCPU is blocked meanwhile. Same applies to other places. At minimum, we'll need a faster way to locate active VQs. -- MST