From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: Network I/O performance Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 07:53:52 +0300 Message-ID: <4A123B60.9090901@redhat.com> References: <0199E0D51A61344794750DC57738F58E66BBF927A9@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net> <4A0A7556.4070406@redhat.com> <0199E0D51A61344794750DC57738F58E66BC980A2D@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net> <4A107E3A.9050209@redhat.com> <20090519013027.GB8566@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Fischer, Anna" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:48190 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753259AbZESExw (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 May 2009 00:53:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090519013027.GB8566@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Herbert Xu wrote: >> Yes, there's a known issue with UDP, where we don't report congestion >> and the queues start dropping packets. There's a patch for tun queued >> for the next merge window; you'll need a 2.6.31 host for that IIRC >> (Herbert?) >> > > It should be in 2.6.30 in fact. However, this is for outbound > traffic only since inbound traffic shouldn't have this problem > of the guest sending faster than the wire. > Is there a corresponding qemu change? Or is this a already handled by the existing code? -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain.