On 27.05.2013 17:29, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 04:24:59PM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
On 27.05.2013 16:07, Oliver Francke wrote:
Well,
Am 27.05.2013 um 08:15 schrieb Peter Lieven :
Hi all,
I ocassionally have seen a probably related problem in the past. It mainly
happen
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 04:24:59PM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
> On 27.05.2013 16:07, Oliver Francke wrote:
> >Well,
> >
> >Am 27.05.2013 um 08:15 schrieb Peter Lieven :
> >
> >>Hi all,
> >>
> >>I ocassionally have seen a probably related problem in the past. It mainly
> >>happend with rtl8139 unde
On 27.05.2013 16:07, Oliver Francke wrote:
Well,
Am 27.05.2013 um 08:15 schrieb Peter Lieven :
Hi all,
I ocassionally have seen a probably related problem in the past. It mainly
happend with rtl8139 under
WinXP where we most likely use rtl8139 due to lack of shipped e1000 drivers.
My questi
Well,
Am 27.05.2013 um 08:15 schrieb Peter Lieven :
> Hi all,
>
> I ocassionally have seen a probably related problem in the past. It mainly
> happend with rtl8139 under
> WinXP where we most likely use rtl8139 due to lack of shipped e1000 drivers.
>
> My question is if you see increasing drop
On 27.05.2013 10:32, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 08:15:42AM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
I ocassionally have seen a probably related problem in the past. It mainly
happend with rtl8139 under
WinXP where we most likely use rtl8139 due to lack of shipped e1000 drivers.
My questi
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 08:15:42AM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
> I ocassionally have seen a probably related problem in the past. It mainly
> happend with rtl8139 under
> WinXP where we most likely use rtl8139 due to lack of shipped e1000 drivers.
>
> My question is if you see increasing dropped p
Hi all,
I ocassionally have seen a probably related problem in the past. It mainly
happend with rtl8139 under
WinXP where we most likely use rtl8139 due to lack of shipped e1000 drivers.
My question is if you see increasing dropped packets on the tap device if this
problem occurs?
tap36 L
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 02:50:18PM +0200, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> Net queues support efficient "receive disable". For example, tap's file
> descriptor will not be polled while its peer has receive disabled. This
> saves CPU cycles for needlessly copying and then dropping packets which
> the peer
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 22.05.2013 14:50, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
>> Net queues support efficient "receive disable". For example, tap's file
>> descriptor will not be polled while its peer has receive disabled. This
>> saves CPU cycles for needlessly copying
Am 22.05.2013 14:50, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
> Net queues support efficient "receive disable". For example, tap's file
> descriptor will not be polled while its peer has receive disabled. This
> saves CPU cycles for needlessly copying and then dropping packets which
> the peer cannot receive.
>
Net queues support efficient "receive disable". For example, tap's file
descriptor will not be polled while its peer has receive disabled. This
saves CPU cycles for needlessly copying and then dropping packets which
the peer cannot receive.
rtl8139 is missing the qemu_flush_queued_packets() call
11 matches
Mail list logo
