[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7e151886-408e-2c1d-3958-77c26b8a4ac0@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 17:12:38 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: "Liu, Jiang" <gerry@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: "Liu, Jing2" <jing2.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
Zha Bin <zhabin@...ux.alibaba.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mst@...hat.com, slp@...hat.com,
virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, jing2.liu@...el.com,
chao.p.peng@...el.com
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] virtio-mmio: add features for
virtio-mmio specification version 3
On 2020/1/3 下午2:14, Liu, Jiang wrote:
>> Ok, I get you now.
>>
>> But still, having fixed number of MSIs is less flexible. E.g:
>>
>> - for x86, processor can only deal with about 250 interrupt vectors.
>> - driver may choose to share MSI vectors [1] (which is not merged but we will for sure need it)
> Thanks for the info:)
> X86 systems roughly have NCPU * 200 vectors available for device interrupts.
> The proposed patch tries to map multiple event sources to an interrupt vector, to avoid running out of x86 CPU vectors.
> Many virtio mmio devices may have several or tens of event sources, and it’s rare to have hundreds of event sources.
> So could we treat the dynamic mapping between event sources and interrupt vectors as an advanced optional feature?
>
Maybe, but I still prefer to implement it if it is not too complex.
Let's see Michael's opinion on this.
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists