From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=FROM_EXCESS_BASE64, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30922C3A59D for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 11:06:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 051572085A for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 11:06:57 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 051572085A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:47986 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1hzfV2-0006Jf-4k for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 07:06:56 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53100) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1hzfUJ-0005fP-7H for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 07:06:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hzfUH-0006aM-QW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 07:06:10 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41028) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hzfUH-0006a3-LM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 07:06:09 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B08F86FABA; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 11:06:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (ovpn-112-60.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.60]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50D52100195C; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 11:06:07 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 12:06:04 +0100 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: Peter Maydell Message-ID: <20190819110604.GH12960@redhat.com> References: <20190814020218.1868-1-quintela@redhat.com> <20190814020218.1868-7-quintela@redhat.com> <20190819095228.GC12960@redhat.com> <87pnl1301v.fsf@trasno.org> <20190819104916.GG12960@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.0 (2019-05-25) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.28]); Mon, 19 Aug 2019 11:06:08 +0000 (UTC) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 6/6] RFH: We lost "connect" events X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Cc: QEMU Developers , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , Juan Quintela Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 12:00:15PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 11:50, Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 wrote: > > I don't think we want to expose this in the QAPI schema for the socke= t > > address, since the correct value is really something that QEMU should > > figure out based on usage context. > > > > Thus, I think we'll have to make it an explicit parameter to the > > qio_channel_socket_listen_{sync,async} APIs, and socket_listen() > > and inet_listen_saddr(), etc. Then the migration code can pass in > > a sensible value based on multifd usage. >=20 > How bad would it be if we just passed SOMAXCONN for the backlog > value always? I'm not 100% clear to be honest, but my feeling is that this will waste resources for much of QEMU usage where we only ever accept a single client connection on an incoming socket. Regards, Daniel --=20 |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberran= ge :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.c= om :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberran= ge :|