[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 6 May 2017 01:25:32 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@...el.com>
Cc: "virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org" <virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"qemu-devel@...gnu.org" <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"david@...hat.com" <david@...hat.com>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"cornelia.huck@...ibm.com" <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"mgorman@...hsingularity.net" <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
"aarcange@...hat.com" <aarcange@...hat.com>,
"amit.shah@...hat.com" <amit.shah@...hat.com>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"liliang.opensource@...il.com" <liliang.opensource@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH v9 2/5] virtio-balloon:
VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_BALLOON_CHUNKS
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 02:31:49PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> On 04/27/2017 07:20 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:03:34AM +0000, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> > > Hi Michael, could you please give some feedback?
> > I'm sorry, I'm not sure feedback on what you are requesting.
> Oh, just some trivial things (e.g. use a field in the
> header, hdr->chunks to indicate the number of chunks
> in the payload) that wasn't confirmed.
>
> I will prepare the new version with fixing the agreed issues,
> and we can continue to discuss those parts if you still find
> them improper.
>
>
> >
> > The interface looks reasonable now, even though there's
> > a way to make it even simpler if we can limit chunk size
> > to 2G (in fact 4G - 1). Do you think we can live with this
> > limitation?
> Yes, I think we can. So, is it good to change to use the
> previous 64-bit chunk format (52-bit base + 12-bit size)?
This isn't what I meant. virtio ring has descriptors with
a 64 bit address and 32 bit size.
If size < 4g is not a significant limitation, why not just
use that to pass address/size in a standard s/g list,
possibly using INDIRECT?
>
> >
> > But the code still needs some cleanup.
> >
>
> OK. We'll also still to discuss your comments in the patch 05.
>
> Best,
> Wei
Powered by blists - more mailing lists