> > It sounds reasonable to expect so. ACPI has objects for devices, not
> > functions (IIRC).
>
> So what I dislike about multifunction devices is the fact that a single
> slot shares an IRQ, and that special code is required in the QEMU
> drivers (virtio guest capability might not always be pr
* Anthony Liguori ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Logically speaking, virtio is a bus. virtio supports all of the features
> of a bus (discover, hot add, hot remove).
>
> Right now, we map virtio devices directly onto the PCI bus.
>
> The problem we're trying to address is limitations of the PCI bus
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> BTW, I've never been that convinced that hotplugging devices is as
> useful as people make it out to be. I also think that's particularly
> true when it comes to hot adding/removing very large numbers of disks.
>
>
On the contrary, the more disks you have, the more l
Ian Kirk wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>
>> For mass storage, we should follow the SCSI model with a single device
>> serving multiple disks, similar to what you suggest. Not sure if the
>> device should have a single queue or one queue per disk.
>>
>
> Don't you just end up re-implementing
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 02:26:45PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:31:11AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > Avi Kivity wrote:
> > >Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > >>
> > >>I think we need to decide what we want to target in terms of upper
> > >>limits.
> > >>
> > >>With a br
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 05:32:45PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>>> This patch changes virtio devices to be multi-function devices whenever
>>> possible. This increases the number of virtio devices we can support now by
>>> a factor of 8.
Avi Kivity wrote:
> For mass storage, we should follow the SCSI model with a single device
> serving multiple disks, similar to what you suggest. Not sure if the
> device should have a single queue or one queue per disk.
Don't you just end up re-implementing SCSI then, at which point you might
a
>>> For mass storage, we should follow the SCSI model with a single device
>>> serving multiple disks, similar to what you suggest. Not sure if the
>>> device should have a single queue or one queue per disk.
>>>
>> My latest thought it to do a virtio-based virtio controller.
>>
>
>
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:31:11AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
> >Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>
> >>I think we need to decide what we want to target in terms of upper
> >>limits.
> >>
> >>With a bridge or two, we can probably easily do 128.
> >>
> >>If we really want to push th
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>> I think we need to decide what we want to target in terms of upper
>> limits.
>>
>> With a bridge or two, we can probably easily do 128.
>>
>> If we really want to push things, I think we should do a PCI based
>> virtio controller. I doubt a large
Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
> I think we need to decide what we want to target in terms of upper
> limits.
>
> With a bridge or two, we can probably easily do 128.
>
> If we really want to push things, I think we should do a PCI based
> virtio controller. I doubt a large number of PCI devices is ev
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>> Maybe require explicit device/function assignment on the command line?
>> It will be managed anyway.
>>
>
> ACPI does support hotplugging of individual functions inside slots,
> not sure how well does Linux (and other OSes) support that.. should be
> transparent tho
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 05:51:51PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>
> >>> This patch changes virtio devices to be multi-function devices whenever
> >>> possible. This increases the number of virtio devices we can
> >>> supp
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 05:32:45PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > This patch changes virtio devices to be multi-function devices whenever
> > possible. This increases the number of virtio devices we can support now by
> > a factor of 8.
> >
> > With this patch, I've been abl
Ryan Harper wrote:
> * Anthony Liguori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-22 09:16]:
>
>> This patch changes virtio devices to be multi-function devices whenever
>> possible. This increases the number of virtio devices we can support now by
>> a factor of 8.
>>
>> With this patch, I've been able to l
* Anthony Liguori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-22 09:16]:
> This patch changes virtio devices to be multi-function devices whenever
> possible. This increases the number of virtio devices we can support now by
> a factor of 8.
>
> With this patch, I've been able to launch a guest with either 220
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Anthony Liguori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch changes virtio devices to be multi-function devices whenever
> possible. This increases the number of virtio devices we can support now by
> a factor of 8.
[...]
> diff --git a/qemu/hw/virtio.c b/qemu/hw/vi
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>>> This patch changes virtio devices to be multi-function devices whenever
>>> possible. This increases the number of virtio devices we can
>>> support now by
>>> a factor of 8.
>>>
>>> With this patch, I've been able to l
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>> This patch changes virtio devices to be multi-function devices whenever
>> possible. This increases the number of virtio devices we can support now by
>> a factor of 8.
>>
>> With this patch, I've been able to launch a guest with either 220 disks
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> This patch changes virtio devices to be multi-function devices whenever
> possible. This increases the number of virtio devices we can support now by
> a factor of 8.
>
> With this patch, I've been able to launch a guest with either 220 disks or 220
> network adapters.
>
>
20 matches
Mail list logo
