From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v8 02/11] vhost: use batched get_vq_desc version Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 04:25:46 -0400 Message-ID: <20200623042456-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20200611113404.17810-1-mst@redhat.com> <20200611113404.17810-3-mst@redhat.com> <0332b0cf-cf00-9216-042c-e870efa33626@redhat.com> <20200622115946-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Eugenio Perez Martin Cc: Jason Wang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm list , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 09:00:57AM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:51 AM Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > On 2020/6/23 上午12:00, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 11:19:26AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > >> On 2020/6/11 下午7:34, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > >>> static void vhost_vq_free_iovecs(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq) > > >>> { > > >>> kfree(vq->descs); > > >>> @@ -394,6 +400,9 @@ static long vhost_dev_alloc_iovecs(struct vhost_dev *dev) > > >>> for (i = 0; i < dev->nvqs; ++i) { > > >>> vq = dev->vqs[i]; > > >>> vq->max_descs = dev->iov_limit; > > >>> + if (vhost_vq_num_batch_descs(vq) < 0) { > > >>> + return -EINVAL; > > >>> + } > > >> This check breaks vdpa which set iov_limit to zero. Consider iov_limit is > > >> meaningless to vDPA, I wonder we can skip the test when device doesn't use > > >> worker. > > >> > > >> Thanks > > > It doesn't need iovecs at all, right? > > > > > > -- MST > > > > > > Yes, so we may choose to bypass the iovecs as well. > > > > Thanks > > > > I think that the kmalloc_array returns ZERO_SIZE_PTR for all of them > in that case, so I didn't bother to skip the kmalloc_array parts. > Would you prefer to skip them all and let them NULL? Or have I > misunderstood what you mean? > > Thanks! Sorry about being unclear. I just meant that it seems cleaner to check for iov_limit being 0 not for worker thread. -- MST