On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 04:48:30PM +0200, Albert Esteve wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 4:11 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 01:42:02PM +0200, Albert Esteve wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > > > True. It may be a good idea to impose a limit in the number of entries > that can > > be added to the table. > > And fail to add new entries once it reaches the limit. > > > > Not sure what would be a good limit though. For example, https:// > www.kernel.org > > /doc/html/v4.9/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-reqbufs.html#c.v4l2_requestbuffers > > does not limit the number of buffers that can be allocated > simultaneously, it > > is an unsigned 32-bits value. > > However, I guess 16-bits (65535) would suffice to cover the vast > majority > of > > usecases. Or even lower, and > > can be adjusted later, as this API gets (more) used. > > > > Does that make sense? > > > > Thanks. > > BR, > > Albert > > let's not top-post please. > > Maybe. Another concern is qemu running out of FDs with a bad backend. > > Question: why does qemu have to maintain these UUIDs in its memory? > > Can't it query the backend with UUID and get the fd back? > > > In the end, we have one backend sharing an object with other backends. > From the importer POV, it does not know who the exporter is, so it cannot > go pocking other backends until it finds the one that is holding a resource > with > the same UUID, it relies on qemu providing this information. > > If we do not want qemu to hold the fds, we could, for instance, store > references to > backends that act as exporters. And then, once an importer requests for a > specific > object with its UUID, we ask for the fd to the exporter(s), hoping to find it.
right. I'd do this. and then the existing table can be regarded as a cache. > But the current solution sounds better fit to the shared objects virtio > feature. > I would be more keen to look into something like what Gerd suggested, limiting > the memory that we use. > > Nonetheless, in qemu we are storing fds, and not mmaping the dmabufs. > So I think limiting the number of entries should suffice, to ensure > that we do not run out of FDs, and memory. my point is you really don't know how much to limit it. if there's ability to drop the entries then you can do this, and cache things in memory. > > > And then, the hash table in QEMU becomes just a cache > to speed up lookups. > > -- > MST > >
