On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 01:58:29PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > 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. I did this and performance with vhost seems to become much more noisy, and drop by about 10% on average, even though in practice only a single device is created. Still trying to figure it out ... Any idea? > -- > error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
