From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Herbert Xu Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 00:06:25 +0800 Message-ID: <20090402160625.GA2173@gondor.apana.org.au> References: <49D469D2020000A100045FA1@lucius.provo.novell.com> <49D473EA020000C700056627@lucius.provo.novell.com> <49D473EA020000C700056627@lucius.provo.novell.com> <49D4CB38.5030205@redhat.com> <49D4DA54.3090401@novell.com> <49D4DE82.5020306@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Gregory Haskins , Patrick Mullaney , anthony@codemonkey.ws, andi@firstfloor.org, Peter Morreale , rusty@rustcorp.com.au, agraf@suse.de, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Avi Kivity Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49D4DE82.5020306@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 06:49:22PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > > I still think you want one MSI per device rather than one MSI per vbus, > to avoid scaling problems on large guest. After Herbert's let loose on > the code, one MSI per queue. Yes, one MSI per TX queue, and one per RX queue :) Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt