On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 12:36:58PM +0530, Linu Cherian wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Christoffer Dall <cdall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 12:45:41PM +0530, linucherian@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> From: Linu Cherian <linu.cherian@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Having only 32 memslots is a real constraint for the maximum > >> number of PCI devices that can be assigned to a single guest. > >> Assuming each PCI device/virtual function having two memory BAR > >> regions, we could assign only 15 devices/virtual functions to a > >> guest. > >> > >> Hence increase KVM_USER_MEM_SLOTS to 508, so that KVM_MEM_SLOTS_NUM is > >> 512 as done in other archs like x86 and powerpc. > > > > Actually on powerpc they just define KVM_USER_MEM_SLOTS as 512 directly. > > > > On x86 they define them as 509 and have 3 private mem slots. > > > > I don't understand the difference and as far as I can tell we don't have > > any private memslots on arm/arm64, so this is just weird to me. > > > > Since the KVM_PRIVATE_MEM_SLOTS was already defined as 4, just kept > it untouched. Should we remove this and keep KVM_USER_MEM_SLOTS as 512 ? Do we have any use for KVM_PRIVATE_MEM_SLOTSA being 4? I can't seem to see this. I think we should either get rid of the definition or at least make sure we understand why we're doing things this way. Thanks, -Christoffer _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
