[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a8b5ec32-ffac-496c-9813-23b57e2ca673@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 11:29:24 +0300
From: Daniil Tatianin <d-tatianin@...dex-team.ru>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yc-core@...dex-team.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm_host: bump KVM_MAX_IRQ_ROUTE to 128k
Ping :)
Is anyone interested in this change?
Our internal testing has shown no problems with this, so I think it
should be fine.
Thanks!
On 3/21/24 11:24 AM, Daniil Tatianin wrote:
> We would like to be able to create large VMs (up to 224 vCPUs atm) with
> up to 128 virtio-net cards, where each card needs a TX+RX queue per vCPU
> for optimal performance (as well as config & control interrupts per
> card). Adding in extra virtio-blk controllers with a queue per vCPU (up
> to 192 disks) yields a total of about ~100k IRQ routes, rounded up to
> 128k for extra headroom and flexibility.
>
> The current limit of 4096 was set in 2018 and is too low for modern
> demands. It also seems to be there for no good reason as routes are
> allocated lazily by the kernel anyway (depending on the largest GSI
> requested by the VM).
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniil Tatianin <d-tatianin@...dex-team.ru>
> ---
> include/linux/kvm_host.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> index 48f31dcd318a..10a141add2a8 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> @@ -2093,7 +2093,7 @@ static inline bool mmu_invalidate_retry_gfn_unsafe(struct kvm *kvm,
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_IRQ_ROUTING
>
> -#define KVM_MAX_IRQ_ROUTES 4096 /* might need extension/rework in the future */
> +#define KVM_MAX_IRQ_ROUTES 131072 /* might need extension/rework in the future */
>
> bool kvm_arch_can_set_irq_routing(struct kvm *kvm);
> int kvm_set_irq_routing(struct kvm *kvm,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists