[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110602132852.GH7141@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 16:28:52 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Carsten Otte <cotte@...ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
linux390@...ibm.com, Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Shirley Ma <xma@...ibm.com>, lguest@...ts.ozlabs.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Krishna Kumar <krkumar2@...ibm.com>,
Tom Lendacky <tahm@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, steved@...ibm.com,
habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/3] virtio_net: fix tx capacity checks using new API
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 11:40:26AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 12:49:54 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> > In the (rare) case where new descriptors are used
> > while virtio_net enables vq callback for the TX vq,
> > virtio_net uses the number of sg entries in the skb it frees to
> > calculate how many descriptors in the ring have just been made
> > available. But this value is an overestimate: with indirect buffers
> > each skb only uses one descriptor entry, meaning we may wake the queue
> > only to find we still can't transmit anything.
>
> This is a bit misleading.
>
> The value is an overestimate, but so is the requirement for
> 2+MAX_SKB_FRAGS, *unless* we suddenly drop into direct mode due to OOM.
>
> Thanks,
> Rusty.
I agree, it's unlikely.
s/still can't transmit anything/are still out of space and need to stop
the ring almost at once/
Better?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists