From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754026AbaCMLCk (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Mar 2014 07:02:40 -0400 Received: from smtp.citrix.com ([66.165.176.89]:59661 "EHLO SMTP.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753623AbaCMLCi (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Mar 2014 07:02:38 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,646,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="110959856" Message-ID: <1394708555.25873.43.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net-next v7 4/9] xen-netback: Introduce TX grant mapping From: Ian Campbell To: David Vrabel CC: Zoltan Kiss , , , , , Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:02:35 +0000 In-Reply-To: <53218EDA.8040904@citrix.com> References: <1394142511-14827-1-git-send-email-zoltan.kiss@citrix.com> <1394142511-14827-5-git-send-email-zoltan.kiss@citrix.com> <1394706812.25873.28.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> <53218EDA.8040904@citrix.com> Organization: Citrix Systems, Inc. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.80.2.80] X-DLP: MIA2 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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?)