From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v9 2/5] virtio-balloon: VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_BALLOON_CHUNKS Date: Sat, 6 May 2017 01:25:32 +0300 Message-ID: <20170506012322-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <1492076108-117229-1-git-send-email-wei.w.wang@intel.com> <1492076108-117229-3-git-send-email-wei.w.wang@intel.com> <20170413184040-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <58F08A60.2020407@intel.com> <20170415000934-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <58F43801.7060004@intel.com> <286AC319A985734F985F78AFA26841F7391F6DCD@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20170426192753-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <59019055.3040708@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "david@redhat.com" , "Hansen, Dave" , "cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "mgorman@techsingularity.net" , "aarcange@redhat.com" , "amit.shah@redhat.com" , "pbonzini@redhat.com" , "liliang.opensource@gmail.com" To: Wei Wang Return-path: Sender: List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <59019055.3040708@intel.com> List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org 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