From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753776AbaCMK4a (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Mar 2014 06:56:30 -0400 Received: from smtp02.citrix.com ([66.165.176.63]:51517 "EHLO SMTP02.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753483AbaCMK43 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Mar 2014 06:56:29 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,646,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="109514706" Message-ID: <53218EDA.8040904@citrix.com> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:56:26 +0000 From: David Vrabel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20121215 Iceowl/1.0b1 Icedove/3.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ian Campbell CC: Zoltan Kiss , , , , , Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net-next v7 4/9] xen-netback: Introduce TX grant mapping 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> In-Reply-To: <1394706812.25873.28.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.80.2.76] X-DLP: MIA2 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. David