From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:57079) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UfXqG-0006tI-2l for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 May 2013 11:54:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UfXqA-0003qW-8A for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 May 2013 11:54:11 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56871) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UfXqA-0003qF-0Z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 May 2013 11:54:06 -0400 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4NFs4Ts001611 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 11:54:04 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 11:54:03 -0400 From: Luiz Capitulino Message-ID: <20130523115403.4d5f587a@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20130516151723.GA2726@redhat.com> References: <1368702445-30733-1-git-send-email-akong@redhat.com> <1368702445-30733-2-git-send-email-akong@redhat.com> <20130516121745.GE31841@redhat.com> <5194F41E.3020501@redhat.com> <20130516150326.GB2485@redhat.com> <5194F764.6010809@redhat.com> <20130516151723.GA2726@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] net: introduce MAC_TABLE_CHANGED event List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Amos Kong , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:17:23 +0300 "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote: > > The > > existing throttling approach ensures that if the event includes latest > > guest information, then the host doesn't even have to do do a query, and > > is guaranteed that reacting to the final event will always see the most > > recent request. But most importantly, if the existing throttling works, > > why do we have to invent a one-off approach for this event instead of > > reusing existing code? Sorry to restart this week old discussion, but I'm now reviewing the patch in question and I dislike how we're coupling the event and the query command. > Because of the 1st issue above. A large delay because we Has this been measured? How long is this large delay? Also, is it impossible for management to issue query-rx-filter on a reasonable rate that would also cause the same problems? IOW, how can we be sure we're fixing anything without trying it on a real use-case scenario? > exceed an arbitrary throttling rate would be bad > for the guest. Contrast with delay in e.g. > device delete event. > The throttling mechanism is good for events that host cares > about, not for events that guest cares about. > > > -- > > Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 > > Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org > > > > >