From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] virtio: console: Fixes Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:34:58 +1030 Message-ID: <201002121934.58477.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> References: <1265950939-12359-1-git-send-email-amit.shah@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1265950939-12359-1-git-send-email-amit.shah@redhat.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: Amit Shah Cc: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 03:32:13 pm Amit Shah wrote: > Hey Rusty, > > Here are a few fixes for virtio and virtio_console. > > The first patch ensures the data elements of vqs are properly > initialised at allocation-time so that we don't trigger BUG_ONs. I found > this when hot-unplugging ports and there was just one unused buffer. > detach_unused_buffers() kept returning pointers that were invalid. I > didn't catch this earlier as I had the in_vq filled completely. > > Patches 2, 4 and 5 can be folded into the series as they are bugfixes > for the functionality present there. > > About patch 5: When running a test that transfers a 260M file from the > host to the guest, qemu-kvm.git takes 17m with a single outstanding > buffer in the in_vq vs. 1m when the entire in_vq is filled. This is a > bug in qemu-kvm.git's scheduling, but since it's a big difference and > not much change involved, we could merge this now. > > Comments? > > If these patches are favourable, I could send you a tarball in private > so that the bugfixes are folded in the series and just patches 1, 3 and > 6 are added. I prefer to fold them myself, after they've spent some time in linux-next. Thanks! Rusty.