Re: [Xen-users] [Xen-devel] Request for input: Extended event channel support

[Wei Liu <liuw@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:53 PM, David Vrabel <dvrabel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 27/03/2013 19:36, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote:
>> On 27 Mar 2013, at 11:23, George Dunlap <dunlapg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> The FIFO solution makes event delivery a matter of adding items to a
>>> highly structured linked list.  The number of event channels for the
>>> interface design has a theoretical maximum of 2^28; the current
>>> implementation is limimited at 2^17, which is over 100,000.  The
>>> number is the same for both 32-bit and 64-bit kernels.
>>
>> Is there any reason for such a low default?  If I'm not mistaken,
>> every guest needs at least 2 event channels (console, xenstore) and
>> probably has two more for a net and disk device.
>
> 131,072 seemed high enough to me but I'd forgotten about the Mirage use
> case.
>
> This can be trivially raised to 2^19 (524,288).  Beyond that, the
> implementation becomes slightly more complex as the pointers to the
> event array pages no longer fit in a single page.
>

Then that would require 512 pages mapped in Xen in the worst case, plus

>> With stub-domains in the mix, we could easily imagine running 25,000
>> VMs with a couple of megabytes of RAM each using Mirage (which can
>> boot very low memory guests without too much trouble).
>

25,000 pages for domUs if domU uses this ABI as well.

This might require bumping global mapping space in Xen, or we can
restrict domU to only use default 2-level ABI to solve this problem.

But let's not worry about future things for now.


Wei.

> Having said that, with 25,000 VMs it would seem sensible to disaggregate
> things like the console and xenstore (in addition to the network and
> block backends). Thus reducing the need for event channels for any
> single domain.
>
> David
>

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-users