* Pankaj Gupta (pankaj.gu...@ionos.com) wrote: > > > > > migration/rdma.c | 2 +- > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/migration/rdma.c b/migration/rdma.c > > > > > index c7c7a384875b..2e223170d06d 100644 > > > > > --- a/migration/rdma.c > > > > > +++ b/migration/rdma.c > > > > > @@ -4238,7 +4238,7 @@ void rdma_start_incoming_migration(const char > > > > > *host_port, Error **errp) > > > > > > > > > > trace_rdma_start_incoming_migration_after_dest_init(); > > > > > > > > > > - ret = rdma_listen(rdma->listen_id, 5); > > > > > + ret = rdma_listen(rdma->listen_id, 128); > > > > > > > > 128 backlog seems too much to me. Any reason for choosing this number. > > > > Any rationale to choose this number? > > > > > > > 128 is the default value of SOMAXCONN, I can use that if it is preferred. > > > > AFAICS backlog is only applicable with RDMA iWARP CM mode. Maybe we > > can increase it to 128.these many > > Or maybe we first increase it to 20 or 32? or so to avoid memory > overhead if we are not > using these many connections at the same time.
Can you explain why you're requiring more than 1? Is this with multifd patches? Dave > > Maybe you can also share any testing data for multiple concurrent live > > migrations using RDMA, please. > > > > Thanks, > > Pankaj > > > > Thanks, > > Pankaj > -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
