WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] default value of extra_dom0_irqs

>>> On 16.11.11 at 04:40, Shu Wu <superwushu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In the changes I noticed the extra_dom0_irqs, which should be 0 by default
> in r20142, was set to 256 in r20143, and caused default number of Dom0's
> nr_pirq to exceed 256. Maybe this prevent IRQ of HP RAID controller, I
> don't quite know about, though. After I set it to 32 (the same number as
> extra_guest_irqs) the cciss.ko worked well. Although I could set this value
> by "extra_guest_irqs=32,32" in boot param, there are still problem:

That would hint at the IRQ number (presumably an MSI one) getting
stored in too narrow a field somewhere in the kernel.

> 1. The argument for dom0 extra irqs, the one after the comma, is
> undocumented.

Feel free to submit a patch to update the respective documentation.
But for your purpose you don't even need the second value afaiu.

> 2. What is the reason of the magic number 256 for Dom0, and 32 for DomU in
> Xen 4.x by default?

They're not magic in any way; if they're found to be too small for a
significant portion of systems, they could get bumped (but not
lowered).

> nr_irqs_gsi is only 16 on x64 arch, but the total

That you speak of one particular system. Most that I work with have
larger values.

> nr_pirq would be more than 256. The magic number still exists in the newest
> code. This is bad hardcode and may cause very elusive fault for newbie
> user, maybe you can have a better solution.

The problem is that we can't judge reasonable for everyone values
here. As long as they serve a majority, we're fine with requiring the
few remaining systems to be run with a command line override.

Speaking of which, one option possible after work that happened over
the last couple of months would be to get rid of ->nr_pirqs altogether,
using nr_irqs again instead. That would make things only worse for your
case though, as you wouldn't then have a way to override the system
determined values.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel