[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] Turn blktap tapfds into a link list


  • To: "Steven Rostedt" <srostedt@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: "Andrew Warfield" <andrew.warfield@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:41:05 -0700
  • Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:41:33 -0700
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=IRwbazmsjcCOS8JmaMIMr+7F9PAFSWwyeN3uhGHloHjik2oLLJTMoJ0MJeimdrZRtALCOMQ2EWXhE6mbfI9LzK+7LKcrv856Qgj8kmgqHpafcqWzj4cJhDWrAw7kiSTMNFM4/YLMpGgBxbRQNz+p7FAYs+HuOYGweTK0ujqlbK8=
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>

>  - Linear searches of the tapfds list are a little grim where they
> appear in
>    the data path (blktap_ioctl, blktap_kick_user, fast_flush_area,

I didn't like this either.  Perhaps I could switch it back to an array
of pointers.  And I could even have the array be able to resize, with
the use of rcu locks.

>    do_block_io_op, dispatch_rw_block_io).  If we are happy with a limit of
>    254 concurrent devices for the immediate term, I wonder if a lookup
> array
>    indexed by minor and allocated on use might be better?

Yeah, I think I do agree with you on this.  I really don't like that
linear search.  Maybe I did it because I was tired and it seemed cool. ;)

Fair enough. :)  Resizable lookup array of pointers sounds great.
Then again 254 pointers may not be the worst overhead. ;)

>  - I enjoyed seeing the domid_translate array go away, I think we can kill
>    this translation all together though by moving the domid/busid lookup
>    out of blktapctrl and into xenbus, and filling it in directly when a
>    new vbd is connected.

This is a separate issue, and would need to be looked at later. (I'm not
to sure on the interworkings of that code).

Absolutely, that comment was partially a note-to-self. ;)

>  - With dynamic allocation, MAX_TAP_DEV seems a little unnecessary.
> Shouldn't
>    we just allocate until we run out of minors now?

Sure! I just was keeping it in sync with what was there.  The old code
didn't allocate more than MAX_TAP_DEV so I wasn't about to change it.

Change away -- the current maximum is pretty arbitrary.

> I'm inclined to wait until immediately after the 3.0.3 barrier with this
> one.
> Sound okay?

Sounds fine with me.  Thanks,

excellent -- thanks again to both you and Stephen for all the patches
this week.  The code is much improved now and it's great to have all
the feedback.

a.

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


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.