Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754028AbbG3GeB (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jul 2015 02:34:01 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59255 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750884AbbG3Gd7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jul 2015 02:33:59 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:33:57 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Igor Mammedov Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] vhost: increase default limit of nregions from 64 to 509 Message-ID: <20150730093011-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> References: <1438180163-275465-1-git-send-email-imammedo@redhat.com> <1438180163-275465-3-git-send-email-imammedo@redhat.com> <20150729182346-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <20150730082603.7c578979@nial.brq.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150730082603.7c578979@nial.brq.redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2449 Lines: 64 On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 08:26:03AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:28:26 +0300 > "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 04:29:23PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > although now there is vhost module max_mem_regions option > > > to set custom limit it doesn't help for default setups, > > > since it requires administrator manually set a higher > > > limit on each host. Which complicates servers deployments > > > and management. > > > Rise limit to the same value as KVM has (509 slots max), > > > so that default deployments would work out of box. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov > > > --- > > > PS: > > > Users that would want to lock down vhost could still > > > use max_mem_regions option to set lower limit, but > > > I expect it would be minority. > > > > I'm not inclined to merge this. > > > > Once we change this we can't take it back. It's not a decision > > to be taken lightly. > considering that continuous HVA idea has failed, why would you > want to take limit back in the future if we rise it now? I'm not sure. I think you merely demonstrated it's a big change for userspace - not that it's unfeasible. Alternatively, if we want an unlimited size table, we should keep it in userspace memory. > > > > And memory hotplug users are a minority. Out of these, users with a > > heavily fragmented PA space due to hotplug abuse are an even smaller > > minority. > > > > > --- > > > include/uapi/linux/vhost.h | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/vhost.h b/include/uapi/linux/vhost.h > > > index 2511954..92657bf 100644 > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/vhost.h > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/vhost.h > > > @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ struct vhost_memory { > > > #define VHOST_MEM_MAX_NREGIONS_NONE 0 > > > /* We support at least as many nregions in VHOST_SET_MEM_TABLE: > > > * for use on legacy kernels without VHOST_GET_MEM_MAX_NREGIONS support. */ > > > -#define VHOST_MEM_MAX_NREGIONS_DEFAULT 64 > > > +#define VHOST_MEM_MAX_NREGIONS_DEFAULT 509 > > > > > > /* VHOST_NET specific defines */ > > > > > > -- > > > 1.8.3.1 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/