On 11/12/2020 21:27, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11 2020 at 09:29, boris ostrovsky wrote:
>
>> On 12/11/20 7:37 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 11 2020 at 13:10, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 11.12.20 00:20, boris.ostrov...@oracle.com wrote:
> On 12/10/20 2:26 PM, Thomas Gleixn
On 28/02/2019 02:03, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
> Zero-copy callback flag is not yet set on frag list skb at the moment
> xenvif_handle_frag_list() returns -ENOMEM. This eventually results in
> leaking grant ref mappings since xenvif_zerocopy_callback() is never
> called for these fragments. Those event
On 23/10/15 10:42, Joe Jin wrote:
> Currently xen vnic allowed to create lots of queues by set module param
> max_queues(both netback and netfront), when queues number larger than
> cpus number, it does not help for performance but need more cpu time.
>
> This patchset limit netback and netfront ma
On 23/10/15 10:44, Joe Jin wrote:
> Should not allocate xen vif queues number more than online cpus.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joe Jin
> Cc: Jan Beulich
> Cc: Wei Liu
> Cc: Ian Campbell
> Cc: Boris Ostrovsky
> Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> ---
> drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c | 28 ++
On 28/07/15 22:06, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/28/2015 08:02 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This patch series aims to use the memory terminologies described in
>> include/linux/mm.h [1] for Linux xen code.
>>
>> Linux is using mistakenly MFN when GFN is meant, I suspect this is because
