From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N3vYh-0002qA-Fw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:46:43 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N3vYc-0002kZ-Ry for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:46:42 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=46749 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1N3vYc-0002kI-D2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:46:38 -0400 Received: from mail-ew0-f221.google.com ([209.85.219.221]:52703) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1N3vYb-0001pc-Uz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:46:38 -0400 Received: by ewy21 with SMTP id 21so3119905ewy.8 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:46:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4AEB2674.9030106@codemonkey.ws> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:46:28 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 5/5] tap: drain queue in tap_send() References: <1256667399-3149-1-git-send-email-markmc@redhat.com> <1256667399-3149-6-git-send-email-markmc@redhat.com> <4AEB1294.6000204@codemonkey.ws> <1256920444.6899.145.camel@blaa> In-Reply-To: <1256920444.6899.145.camel@blaa> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Mark McLoughlin Cc: Scott Tsai , Sven Rudolph , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Mark McLoughlin wrote: > On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 11:21 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> Mark McLoughlin wrote: >> >>> Okay, let's try re-enabling the drain-entire-queue behaviour, with a >>> difference - before each subsequent packet, use qemu_can_send_packet() >>> to check that we can send it. This is similar to how we check before >>> polling the tap fd and avoids having to drop a packet if the receiver >>> cannot handle it. >>> >>> This patch should be a performance improvement since we no longer have >>> to go through the mainloop for each packet. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Mark McLoughlin >>> >>> >> Could you rebase and rend this patch against master? I've got 1-4 in >> staging. >> >> The GSO changes make resolving this non trivial (for me at least :-)). >> > > Um, you've lost me :-) > > You've got it in staging AFAICS, and anyway ... 5/5 is mostly a revert > of 1/5, so if 1/5 applied so should 5/5 > > What's in staging looks fine to me, except it doesn't build because of > problems with other patches > Ignore it, I accidentally tried backporting the patch targeted for the stable tree and then responded to the wrong patch. Regards, Anthony Liguori