[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A40C434.9090306@novell.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:01:56 -0400
From: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mtosatti@...hat.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, markmc@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] pass write value to in_range pointers
Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/23/2009 02:44 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:04:06AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>>
>>>>> It will also need to support
>>>>> multiple matches.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> What, signal many fds on the same address/value pair?
>>>> I see this as a bug. Why is this a good thing to support?
>>>> Just increases the chance of leaking this fd.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I believe Avi asked for this feature specifically, so I will defer
>>> to him.
>>>
>>
>> Hmm. That's hard to implement in my model. Avi, can we give up
>> this feature? I don't think anyone needs this specifically ...
>>
>
> I think we can make do with passing that single eventfd to multiple
> consumers. It means their event count reads may return zero, but I
> guess we can live with that.
>
> I do want to retain flexibility in how we route events.
>
Ok, so for now I will just crank up the io_bus array, and we can address
scale another day. Can I just drop patch 2/3 and let the io_bus govern
the limit?
-Greg
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (267 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists