[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] xen/evtchn: restrict the maximum number of evtchn supported for domUs
- To: Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>
- From: Rahul Singh <Rahul.Singh@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2022 14:19:53 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- Arc-authentication-results: i=2; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass (sender ip is 63.35.35.123) smtp.rcpttodomain=lists.xenproject.org smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; dmarc=pass (p=none sp=none pct=100) action=none header.from=arm.com; dkim=pass (signature was verified) header.d=armh.onmicrosoft.com; arc=pass (0 oda=1 ltdi=1 spf=[1,1,smtp.mailfrom=arm.com] dkim=[1,1,header.d=arm.com] dmarc=[1,1,header.from=arm.com])
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=arm.com; dkim=pass header.d=arm.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=F/xmVarc3mVjKi/yTFB1/8kMWsZEvWKR3MJPbRbJ9pM=; b=UC1N41EUudk3+U46JIL7No6KKnBaCYpQgyLqzmjf7osbKxpqicvQKWsjoGR7BcpYPDwrcgFk9oFHVqzSHOfEd0zr2+scn3S5hieCo8+9QJ0sI+iO7sBCQLuLqWYXrASqee2DfzixChC/41mducfGxRtCyzphUuUVFeqZlcTA1RY1k2Jpe6pwZaXO+dVo1wdFrXpVgXw0yEs2bSctyPbTley1LqO3ej9UG/2aDQCJ/xUXJxM0WVWrOC+EZgnbMI9a+9Zji72cYAEUq/W64UDK/ci4rlrfQOyKzzEfCwpAHdJHesi2wUiYCNXKsxd/NEZmttqF3wB000l/d9vYawz6Qg==
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=F/xmVarc3mVjKi/yTFB1/8kMWsZEvWKR3MJPbRbJ9pM=; b=XZH2cDqqtrM4phXohfDVXUO4Hc5QF9AkkDQS6PtICNvz2ZHOFJlSCq5I/ZvkygQMq7Xa4AIr2v+sAwzlKtObfEOZ1+1IcBV6htsdlb2ZhJMYlpAqpYlHH1LNmOw+NWtMzQNrFv9QV4oixf4PeeT5CC+W2ROm+TmU013goYSPaxlz7fFX1iGVnzj29Ec8BgeCTXS2El1Gay+wa2QRnqbMeucAPz25puWZIU71Q1OxnnUCjm27eqy+QgHxxR1B043PtEg79/+0z3SUYU/PlI4dwSQbvCIK9tFZUDbbesNDvFQnnWWTdXMI+mT0pA176B0l2p7Ia35Y+uQ4R2QcahsZhA==
- Arc-seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=pass; b=M8DSte33ztEPXLgGDNS7YUyHTdwFex1Zx0maPW/TqweIjPVP6r874+wnBTXtfpDBdDk+3sMV9BNoa9b41HegGDtpew6iqsLA0Nk6dt3XPMRubYvDIeqocV9xN5yX5/FhFJGO5hDBGkqxszHF+fz3GU9UB8pgvjshdEXyVA9DSsDtb7FP8s6afscNSJEePJazpuyFbMkCIfSNf5EJJxiS+7fefVkuRsD67Hg2T8Tdyin0D5Ray00WiuwvyOcO4Kk9fR4+BFQn0LJZqTs7Rf6vbVwl4PtyS9MiXKa+kMCrdSJMEcapIMIypzNZxGs71wO3SW65ttvf/y6MjBHvqnvPUw==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=kUoxaTRT1LFmW4OlYWLqqpbMD66Mld69Lu5u6AMXOZzRcRcIE3DWVHkbH9uuvk9MpAOTkZ5mqX9jxnlISlyo6nsUCAdimottRq5hG8+OctZqHBlTH+unvMUxuG+mCp5GK9wxGK6v+FgfGPnoORGgIlbAZ9oc4LpHOSmnKPm9sB6M5TAbky6Ze26Miyd6F2agw0oHjG7J7Flwe/+wKZ5fp+8TeR91NIPtM8YSAPPoi8z6V4pfBpyInsbsDYzSYajKTvKgNJJbTqReAmIbWFjVpk1SwE7VsuSu2CmlUUC/jAQ6rb2Uzh4vmEpQmWddJwveUsxbDLtTBHPzdsILEXnvJg==
- Authentication-results-original: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=arm.com;
- Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Bertrand Marquis <Bertrand.Marquis@xxxxxxx>, Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@xxxxxxxx>, Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Wed, 07 Sep 2022 14:20:12 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
- Nodisclaimer: true
- Original-authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=arm.com;
- Thread-index: AQHYwfZ0FAeUK0FPYE2nPRBk38a8ya3T7+AAgAAV/QA=
- Thread-topic: [PATCH v4 3/7] xen/evtchn: restrict the maximum number of evtchn supported for domUs
Hi Julien,
> On 7 Sep 2022, at 2:01 pm, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 06/09/2022 14:40, Rahul Singh wrote:
>> Restrict the maximum number of evtchn supported for domUs to avoid
>> allocating a large amount of memory in Xen.
>> Set the default value of max_evtchn_port to 1023. The value of 1023
>> should be sufficient for domUs guests because on ARM we don't bind
>
> To me, domUs and guests mean the same. So s/guests//
Ack.
>
>> physical interrupts to event channels. The only use of the evtchn port
>> is inter-domain communications. Another reason why we choose the value
>> of 1023 to follow the default behavior of libxl.
>> Signed-off-by: Rahul Singh <rahul.singh@xxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Changes in v4:
>> - fix minor comments in commit msg
>> - Added Michal Reviewed-by
>> Changes in v3:
>> - added in commit msg why we set the max_evtchn_port value to 1023.
>> - added the comment in code also why we set the max_evtchn_port to 1023
>> - remove the define and set the value to 1023 in code directly.
>> Changes in v2:
>> - new patch in the version
>> ---
>> xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c | 8 +++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
>> index 3fd1186b53..fde133cd94 100644
>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
>> @@ -3277,7 +3277,13 @@ void __init create_domUs(void)
>> struct xen_domctl_createdomain d_cfg = {
>> .arch.gic_version = XEN_DOMCTL_CONFIG_GIC_NATIVE,
>> .flags = XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hvm | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hap,
>> - .max_evtchn_port = -1,
>> + /*
>> + * The default of 1023 should be sufficient for domUs guests
>
> To me, domUs and guests mean the same. So s/guests//
>
> Same here. With that:
>
> Acked-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Cheers,
Ack.
Regards,
Rahul
|
