On 2015-07-30 23:19, Steve Rutherford wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:38:20AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 30/07/2015 10:37, Steve Rutherford wrote:
>>> This looks a bit non-sensical, but is overprepared for the introduction
>>> IOAPIC hotplug, which two patches down the line. Changing it is fine,
>>> you'll just need to merge the very same change back.
>>
>> By "IOAPIC hotplug" you mean changing the number of reserved routes?  Is
>> it necessary?  You could just reserve a bunch of routes depending on the
>> maximum number of IOAPICs.
> Hmm. Yeah, I think that might be cleaner. Thinking about it, I'm a bit nervous
> about the idea of the number of reserved routes shrinking. We would have 
> needed
> to trigger an IOAPIC scan if the number of reserved routes changed.
> 
> Jan might have an opinion here.

A static preallocation is likely fine, given reasonable room. I have no
idea about a good limit, though. To be safe, we could pull in someone
from Intel, maybe the guy who worked on the IOAPIC refactorings in the
kernel to enable hotplugging.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to