Hi Paul, Seems your last mail arrived in pretty bad shape (truncated) in my mailbox ..
-- Sander Wednesday, March 26, 2014, 6:16:49 PM, you wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sander Eikelenboom [mailto:li...@eikelenboom.it] >> Sent: 26 March 2014 16:54 >> To: Paul Durrant >> Cc: Wei Liu; annie li; Zoltan Kiss; xen-de...@lists.xen.org; Ian Campbell; >> linux- >> kernel; net...@vger.kernel.org >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable Linux 3.14-rc3 and 3.13 Network >> troubles "bisected" >> >> >> Wednesday, March 26, 2014, 5:25:21 PM, you wrote: >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Sander Eikelenboom [mailto:li...@eikelenboom.it] >> >> Sent: 26 March 2014 16:07 >> >> To: Paul Durrant >> >> Cc: Wei Liu; annie li; Zoltan Kiss; xen-de...@lists.xen.org; Ian Campbell; >> linux- >> >> kernel; net...@vger.kernel.org >> >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable Linux 3.14-rc3 and 3.13 Network >> >> troubles "bisected" >> >> >> >> >> >> Wednesday, March 26, 2014, 4:50:30 PM, you wrote: >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> From: Sander Eikelenboom [mailto:li...@eikelenboom.it] >> >> >> Sent: 26 March 2014 15:23 >> >> >> To: Paul Durrant >> >> >> Cc: Wei Liu; annie li; Zoltan Kiss; xen-de...@lists.xen.org; Ian >> >> >> Campbell; >> >> linux- >> >> >> kernel; net...@vger.kernel.org >> >> >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable Linux 3.14-rc3 and 3.13 Network >> >> >> troubles "bisected" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Wednesday, March 26, 2014, 3:44:42 PM, you wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> >> From: Sander Eikelenboom [mailto:li...@eikelenboom.it] >> >> >> >> Sent: 26 March 2014 11:11 >> >> >> >> To: Paul Durrant >> >> >> >> Cc: Wei Liu; annie li; Zoltan Kiss; xen-de...@lists.xen.org; Ian >> Campbell; >> >> >> linux- >> >> >> >> kernel; net...@vger.kernel.org >> >> >> >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable Linux 3.14-rc3 and 3.13 >> Network >> >> >> >> troubles "bisected" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Paul, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You have been awfully silent for this whole thread while this is a >> >> >> regression >> >> >> >> caused by a patch of you >> >> >> >> (ca2f09f2b2c6c25047cfc545d057c4edfcfe561c as clearly stated much >> >> earlier >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> this thread). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Sorry, I've been distracted... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The commit messages states: >> >> >> >> "net_rx_action() is the place where we could do with an accurate >> >> >> >> predicition but, >> >> >> >> since that has proven tricky to calculate, a cheap worse-case >> >> >> >> (but >> not >> >> >> too >> >> >> >> bad) >> >> >> >> estimate is all we really need since the only thing we *must* >> prevent >> >> is >> >> >> >> xenvif_gop_skb() >> >> >> >> consuming more slots than are available." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Your "worst-case" calculation stated in the commit message is >> clearly >> >> not >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> worst case, >> >> >> >> since it doesn't take calls to "get_next_rx_buffer" into account -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
