[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1317809190.3158.352.camel@hornet.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 11:06:30 +0100
From: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"peter.maydell@...aro.org" <peter.maydell@...aro.org>,
Anthony Liguori <aliguori@...ibm.com>,
"Michael S.Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtio: Add platform bus driver for memory mapped
virtio device
> > I had an impression that you were planning to add some API for the
> > devices to choose the alignment? If so this #define would simply
> > disappear... Generally, the Client is in control now.
>
> I'm not sure it makes sense to vary per-device, but per-OS perhaps.
It's sorted then - the Guest implementation chooses the alignment, the
Host is informed about it, everyone is happy :-)
> > > > + /* TODO: Write requested queue size to VIRTIO_MMIO_QUEUE_NUM */
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Check if queue is either not available or already active. */
> > > > + num = readl(vm_dev->base + VIRTIO_MMIO_QUEUE_NUM);
> > > > + if (!num || readl(vm_dev->base + VIRTIO_MMIO_QUEUE_PFN)) {
> > >
> > > Please fix this now, like so:
> > >
> > > /* Queue shouldn't already be set up. */
> > > if (readl(vm_dev->base + VIRTIO_MMIO_QUEUE_PFN))
> > > ...
> > >
> > > /* Try for a big queue, drop down to a two-page queue. */
> > > num = VIRTIO_MMIO_MAX_RING;
> >
> > Ok, but how much would MAX_RING be? 1024? 513? 127? I really wouldn't
> > like to be a judge here... I was hoping the device would tell me that
> > (it knows what amounts of data are likely to be processed?)
>
> I'm not sure who knows better, device or driver. The device can suggest
> a value, but you should always write it, otherwise that code will never
> get tested until it's too late...
>
> > > for (;;) {
> > > size = PAGE_ALIGN(vring_size(num, VIRTIO_MMIO_VRING_ALIGN));
> > > info->queue = alloc_pages_exact(size, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO);
> > > if (info->queue)
> > > break;
> > >
> > > /* Already smallest possible allocation? */
> > > if (size == VIRTIO_MMIO_VRING_ALIGN*2) {
> > > err = -ENOMEM;
> > > goto error_kmalloc;
> > > }
> > > num /= 2;
> > > }
> > and then
> > writel(num, vm_dev->base + VIRTIO_MMIO_QUEUE_NUM);
> >
> > Can do. This, however, gets us back to this question: can the Host
> > cowardly refuse the requested queue size? If you really think that it
> > can't, I'm happy to accept that and change the spec accordingly. If it
> > can, we'll have to read the size back and potentially re-alloc pages...
>
> I'm not sure. Perhaps the device gives the maximum it will accept, and
> the driver should start from that or 1025, whatever is less (that's
> still 28k for each ring). That gives us flexibility.
Ok, So I'll add sort of "QUEUE_NUM_MAX" read-only register in the device
spec and use min(device_max, driver_max) as a base for the pages
allocation, then notify the Host about the queue size as done with the
alignment.
Patch v2 to follow shortly.
Cheers!
Paweł
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists