From: Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:21:33 +1000
> Dave, I think you're the only one (so far?) with multiple irqs.
Luckily there are known hw implementations with that issue
so I won't be weird for long :)
> It's not clear that guest-controlled interrupt mitigation i
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 n
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 13:44 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Christian Borntraeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:45:40 +0200
>
> > Am Mittwoch, 4. Juli 2007 schrieb Rusty Russell:
> > > +static void receive_skb(struct net_device *dev, struct sk_buff *skb,
> > [...]
> > > + neti
From: Christian Borntraeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:45:40 +0200
> Am Mittwoch, 4. Juli 2007 schrieb Rusty Russell:
> > +static void receive_skb(struct net_device *dev, struct sk_buff *skb,
> [...]
> > + netif_rx(skb);
>
> In the NAPI case, we should use netif_receive_skb,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 12:28 +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> Am Mittwoch, 4. Juli 2007 schrieb Rusty Russell:
>>> +static void try_fill_recv(struct virtnet_info *vi)
>
>> Hmm, so it allocates skbs until oom or until add_buf fails, right?
>
> Yep.
>
>> Do you expe
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 devic
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 12:45 +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 4. Juli 2007 schrieb Rusty Russell:
> > +static void receive_skb(struct net_device *dev, struct sk_buff *skb,
> [...]
> > + netif_rx(skb);
>
> In the NAPI case, we should use netif_receive_skb, no?
Oops, well spotted
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 12:28 +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 4. Juli 2007 schrieb Rusty Russell:
> > +static void try_fill_recv(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> Hmm, so it allocates skbs until oom or until add_buf fails, right?
Yep.
> Do you expect the add_buf call to fail if we have
Am Mittwoch, 4. Juli 2007 schrieb Rusty Russell:
> +static void receive_skb(struct net_device *dev, struct sk_buff *skb,
[...]
> + netif_rx(skb);
In the NAPI case, we should use netif_receive_skb, no?
Christian
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtua
Am Mittwoch, 4. Juli 2007 schrieb Rusty Russell:
> +static void try_fill_recv(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> +{
> + struct sk_buff *skb;
> + struct scatterlist sg[MAX_SKB_FRAGS];
> + int num, err;
> +
> + for (;;) {
> + skb = netdev_alloc_skb(vi->ndev, MAX_PACKET_LEN);
> +
The network driver uses *two* virtqueues: one for input packets and
one for output packets. This has nice locking properties (ie. we
don't do any for recv vs send).
TODO:
1) GSO.
2) Checksum options.
3) Big packets.
4) Multi-client devices (maybe separate driver?).
11 matches
Mail list logo
