From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gleb Natapov Subject: Re: KVM call agenda for Apr 27 Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:05:56 +0300 Message-ID: <20100427130556.GH10044@redhat.com> References: <20100426172634.GC15278@x200.localdomain> <4BD5D28C.7080700@codemonkey.ws> <20100426221258.GH15278@x200.localdomain> <4BD61584.9080208@codemonkey.ws> <20100427111140.GF10044@redhat.com> <4BD6DFD2.7050509@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Chris Wright , kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:3713 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752062Ab0D0NGA (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:06:00 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BD6DFD2.7050509@codemonkey.ws> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 08:00:02AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 04/27/2010 06:11 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >Network cards have low number of rx/tx buffers interrupt. This is also > >heuristic. Do you think driver should poll for this event instead and > >NIC designers just wasted their time designing the feature? > > I don't see how the two cases are at all similar. > They are the same. They send notification when resource is low. > More importantly, I don't see what the burden is of polling when > you're talking about a very unusual statistic that has a very > limited use case. > Poll is the wrong answer. Always. The statistic is very common and has wide use case unless you have unlimited storage. -- Gleb.