[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c56cc86d-a420-79ca-8420-e99db91980fa@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:51:34 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
eperezma@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v8 02/11] vhost: use batched get_vq_desc version
On 2020/6/23 上午12:00, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 11:19:26AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2020/6/11 下午7:34, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> static void vhost_vq_free_iovecs(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
>>> {
>>> kfree(vq->descs);
>>> @@ -394,6 +400,9 @@ static long vhost_dev_alloc_iovecs(struct vhost_dev *dev)
>>> for (i = 0; i < dev->nvqs; ++i) {
>>> vq = dev->vqs[i];
>>> vq->max_descs = dev->iov_limit;
>>> + if (vhost_vq_num_batch_descs(vq) < 0) {
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>> This check breaks vdpa which set iov_limit to zero. Consider iov_limit is
>> meaningless to vDPA, I wonder we can skip the test when device doesn't use
>> worker.
>>
>> Thanks
> It doesn't need iovecs at all, right?
>
> -- MST
Yes, so we may choose to bypass the iovecs as well.
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists