Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC][PATCH 28/45] qemu-kvm: msix: Drop tracking of used vectors

[Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>]

On 2011-10-18 16:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I actually would not mind preallocating everything upfront which is much
>>>>>>> easier.  But with your patch we get a silent failure or a drastic
>>>>>>> slowdown which is much more painful IMO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again: did we already saw that limit? And where does it come from if not
>>>>>> from KVM?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a hardware limitation of intel APICs. interrupt vector is encoded
>>>>> in an 8 bit field in msi address. So you can have at most 256 of these.
>>>>
>>>> There should be no such limitation with pseudo GSIs we use for MSI
>>>> injection. They end up as MSI messages again, so actually 256 (-reserved
>>>> vectors) * number-of-cpus (on x86).
>>>
>>> This limits which CPUs can get the interrupt though.
>>> Linux seems to have a global pool as it wants to be able to freely
>>> balance vectors between CPUs. Or, consider a guest with a single CPU :)
>>>
>>> Anyway, why argue - there is a limitation, and it's not coming from KVM,
>>> right?
>>
>> No, our limit we hit with MSI message routing are first of all KVM GSIs,
>> and there only pseudo GSIs that do not go to any interrupt controller
>> with limited pins.
> 
> I see KVM_MAX_IRQ_ROUTES 1024
> This is > 256 so KVM does not seem to be the problem.

We can generate way more different MSI messages than 256. A message may
encode the target CPU, so you have this number in the equation e.g.

> 
>> That could easily be lifted in the kernel if we run
>> into shortages in practice.
> 
> What I was saying is that resources are limited even without kvm.

What other resources related to this particular case are exhausted
before GSI numbers?

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux