On 05/21/2018 01:32 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
On 05/21/2018 07:35 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:A separate module?
On 05/21/2018 01:40 AM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:Well, I hoped that it would be easier to maintain if I modify existing
On 05/19/2018 01:04 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:I am actually wondering how much of that code you end up reusing. You
On 05/17/2018 04:26 AM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:Sure, v1 will have it
From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko@xxxxxxxx>A commit message would be useful.
Sort of. Basically I need to {increase|decrease}_reservation, notSigned-off-by: Oleksandr AndrushchenkoSo what you are proposing is not really ballooning. You are just
<oleksandr_andrushchenko@xxxxxxxx>
ÂÂÂÂÂÂ for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++) {
-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ page = alloc_page(gfp);
-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ if (page == NULL) {
-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ nr_pages = i;
-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ state = BP_EAGAIN;
-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ break;
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ if (ext_pages) {
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ page = ext_pages[i];
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ } else {
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ page = alloc_page(gfp);
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ if (page == NULL) {
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ nr_pages = i;
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ state = BP_EAGAIN;
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ break;
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ }
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ }
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ scrub_page(page);
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ list_add(&page->lru, &pages);
@@ -529,7 +565,7 @@ static enum bp_state
decrease_reservation(unsigned long nr_pages, gfp_t gfp)
ÂÂÂÂÂÂ i = 0;
ÂÂÂÂÂÂ list_for_each_entry_safe(page, tmp, &pages, lru) {
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ /* XENMEM_decrease_reservation requires a GFN */
-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ frame_list[i++] = xen_page_to_gfn(page);
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ frames[i++] = xen_page_to_gfn(page);
ÂÂ Â #ifdef CONFIG_XEN_HAVE_PVMMU
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ /*
@@ -552,18 +588,22 @@ static enum bp_state
decrease_reservation(unsigned long nr_pages, gfp_t gfp)
ÂÂ #endif
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ list_del(&page->lru);
ÂÂ -ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ balloon_append(page);
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ if (!ext_pages)
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ balloon_append(page);
piggybacking on existing interfaces, aren't you?
actually
allocating ballooned pages.
Do you think I can simply EXPORT_SYMBOL for
{increase|decrease}_reservation?
Any other suggestion?
pretty much create new code paths in both routines and common code ends
up being essentially the hypercall.
code
to support both use-cases, but I am also ok to create new routines if
this
seems to be reasonable - please let me know
 So the question is --- would it makeThis can be done, but which driver will host this code then? If we
sense to do all of this separately from the balloon driver?
move from
the balloon driver, then this could go to either gntdev or grant-table.
What's your preference?
Is there any use for this feature outside of your zero-copy DRM driver?Intel's hyper dma-buf (Dongwon/Matt CC'ed), V4L/GPU at least.
Thank you,
-boris