Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net-next v7 4/9] xen-netback: Introduce TX grant mapping

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:02:35AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 10:56 +0000, David Vrabel wrote:
> > On 13/03/14 10:33, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 21:48 +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> > >> @@ -135,13 +146,31 @@ struct xenvif {
> > >>          pending_ring_idx_t pending_cons;
> > >>          u16 pending_ring[MAX_PENDING_REQS];
> > >>          struct pending_tx_info pending_tx_info[MAX_PENDING_REQS];
> > >> +        grant_handle_t grant_tx_handle[MAX_PENDING_REQS];
> > >>  
> > >>          /* Coalescing tx requests before copying makes number of grant
> > >>           * copy ops greater or equal to number of slots required. In
> > >>           * worst case a tx request consumes 2 gnttab_copy.
> > >>           */
> > >>          struct gnttab_copy tx_copy_ops[2*MAX_PENDING_REQS];
> > >> -
> > >> +        struct gnttab_map_grant_ref tx_map_ops[MAX_PENDING_REQS];
> > >> +        struct gnttab_unmap_grant_ref tx_unmap_ops[MAX_PENDING_REQS];
> > > 
> > > I wonder if we should break some of these arrays into separate
> > > allocations? Wasn't there a problem with sizeof(struct xenvif) at one
> > > point?
> > 
> > alloc_netdev() falls back to vmalloc() if the kmalloc failed so there's
> > no need to split these structures.
> 
> Is vmalloc space in abundant supply? For some reason I thought it was
> limited (maybe that's a 32-bit only limitation?)

32-bit has a limitation of 128MB by default. 64-bit has much larger
address space.

Wei.

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