From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Virtio draft IV: the net driver Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:23:19 +1000 Message-ID: <1184206999.6005.672.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1183522348.6110.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200707111228.30707.borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <1184153201.6005.618.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200707111346.07185.borntraeger@de.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200707111346.07185.borntraeger@de.ibm.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Christian Borntraeger Cc: Carsten Otte , "David S. Miller" , Herbert Xu , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 13:46 +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 11. Juli 2007 schrieb Rusty Russell: > > There will be some internal limit on how many buffers the virtio > > implementation supports, but depends on that implementation. It could > > be a number of buffers or a total number of descriptors. > > I would suggest to implement a limit in the device driver as well. Otherwise > the network driver could allocate a huge amount of guest memory if the virtio > implementation accepts a large amount of buffers. This memory is not swappable > and reclaimable by the memory management, so we should be careful. Hi Christian, I this this would be premature, but easy enough to do later if we have such a high-limit virtio implementation. If we did do it, it would make sense to have it a variable passed into the net driver. Thanks, Rusty.