From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm:virtio-net: Run TX from the I/O thread Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:43:00 -0600 Message-ID: <4978BE34.5010406@codemonkey.ws> References: <20090121230642.10404.65372.stgit@kvm.aw> <1232628422.4533.14.camel@blaa> <4978777C.6020703@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Mark McLoughlin , Alex Williamson , kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Avi Kivity Return-path: Received: from mail-qy0-f11.google.com ([209.85.221.11]:35917 "EHLO mail-qy0-f11.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751714AbZAVSnS (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:43:18 -0500 Received: by qyk4 with SMTP id 4so4756274qyk.13 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:43:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4978777C.6020703@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Avi Kivity wrote: > Mark McLoughlin wrote: >> Avi and I went back and forth on this one in great detail before: >> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/kvm@vger.kernel.org/msg06431.html >> >> Avi's arguments make a lot of sense, but looking over those patches >> again now, I still think that applying them would be a better approach >> than what we have right now. >> > > I can go with that. Anthony, should I wait for a qemu iothread so it > can go upstream directly? Uh, go ahead and apply it now. The io thread should come soon but I don't think it's going to be easier to wait and merge this later than dealing with the conflict after you resync against QEMU post IO thread. Regards, Anthony Liguori