Rusty Russell wrote: > On Sun, 2007-09-23 at 12:05 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> Rusty Russell wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 14:43 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: >>> >>>> 32 bits of page numbers give 44 bits of physical address on x86. That's >>>> 16TB per guest. Admittedly it's smaller on a VAX. >>>> >>> I like to feel that I make these mistakes to ensure others are paying >>> attention. However, it does mean that I can just put an address in >>> there and increase the length field to 32 bits. Much rejoicing. >>> >>> >> Why are we sending page numbers anyway? See below. >> > > Perhaps I was unclear. I already changed to a 64-bit address. I > haven't send out another set of patches because I'm changing to Arnd's > explicit virtio bus too. Will send out a new set tomorrow at this rate. > >
It does say so quite explicitly in the quoted text. Sorry. >> Where one of the flags is VRING_DESC_INDIRECT, which means that the >> memory within (address, length) is a bunch of descriptors instead of raw >> data. >> > > If that's all we wanted, it's fairly easy to do as a future extension > even if we didn't change it today. My concern was the allocation and > management of those sg pages; hence my desire for a patch 8) > Won't kmalloc()/kfree() suffice? IMO the tradeoff (compared to chaining with its reduction in ring size, and handling ood) is positive. I'll try a patch based on the next patchset. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
