From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: KVM call agenda for Apr 27 Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:00:02 -0500 Message-ID: <4BD6DFD2.7050509@codemonkey.ws> References: <20100426172634.GC15278@x200.localdomain> <4BD5D28C.7080700@codemonkey.ws> <20100426221258.GH15278@x200.localdomain> <4BD61584.9080208@codemonkey.ws> <20100427111140.GF10044@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Chris Wright , kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org To: Gleb Natapov Return-path: Received: from mail-px0-f174.google.com ([209.85.212.174]:35106 "EHLO mail-px0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753580Ab0D0NAH (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:00:07 -0400 Received: by pxi17 with SMTP id 17so2129495pxi.19 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 06:00:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20100427111140.GF10044@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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. 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. Regards, Anthony Liguori > -- > Gleb. >