On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:25:05AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 04:25:33PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 02:58:36PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > > +static struct virtio_vsock_buf *
> > > +virtio_transport_alloc_buf(struct virtio_vsock_pkt *pkt, bool zero_copy)
> > > +{
> > > + struct virtio_vsock_buf *buf;
> > > +
> > > + if (pkt->len == 0)
> > > + return NULL;
> > > +
> > > + buf = kzalloc(sizeof(*buf), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > + if (!buf)
> > > + return NULL;
> > > +
> > > + /* If the buffer in the virtio_vsock_pkt is full, we can move it to
> > > + * the new virtio_vsock_buf avoiding the copy, because we are sure that
> > > + * we are not use more memory than that counted by the credit mechanism.
> > > + */
> > > + if (zero_copy && pkt->len == pkt->buf_len) {
> > > + buf->addr = pkt->buf;
> > > + pkt->buf = NULL;
> > > + } else {
> > > + buf->addr = kmalloc(pkt->len, GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > buf and buf->addr could be allocated in a single call, though I'm not
> > sure how big an optimization this is.
> >
>
> IIUC, in the case of zero-copy I should allocate only the buf,
> otherwise I should allocate both buf and buf->addr in a single call
> when I'm doing a full-copy.
>
> Is it correct?
Yes, but it's your choice whether optimization is worthwhile. If it
increases the complexity of the code and doesn't result in a measurable
improvement, then it's not worth it.
Stefan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
