Hi Michael,
I really appreciate your time in helping us dive into this issue.
Below, you had suggested to "limit the speed of tun interface using a non work
conserving disc" and matching the rate of the backend device. Unfortunately,
many backend devices (whether real devices or ones we are
Hi Michael,
I really appreciate your time in helping us dive into this issue.
Below, you had suggested to limit the speed of tun interface using a non work
conserving disc and matching the rate of the backend device. Unfortunately,
many backend devices (whether real devices or ones we are
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 09:28:51PM -0400, Steven Galgano wrote:
> On 04/13/2014 10:14 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > Steven, Brian,
> >
> > thanks for reporting this issue.
> > Please see my comments below.
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:41:42PM -0400, Brian Adamson wrote:
> >> To
On 04/13/2014 10:14 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> Steven, Brian,
>
> thanks for reporting this issue.
> Please see my comments below.
>
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:41:42PM -0400, Brian Adamson wrote:
>> To weigh in on the desire to have support (at least as an optional behavior)
>> for
Hi Steven,
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 09:42:19PM -0400, Steven Galgano wrote:
> On 04/10/2014 06:29 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:19:40PM -0400, Steven Galgano wrote:
> >> Add tuntap flow control support for use by back pressure routing
> >> protocols. Setting the new
Steven, Brian,
thanks for reporting this issue.
Please see my comments below.
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:41:42PM -0400, Brian Adamson wrote:
> To weigh in on the desire to have support (at least as an optional behavior)
> for the legacy flow control behavior, there are many existing uses of
Steven, Brian,
thanks for reporting this issue.
Please see my comments below.
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:41:42PM -0400, Brian Adamson wrote:
To weigh in on the desire to have support (at least as an optional behavior)
for the legacy flow control behavior, there are many existing uses of it.
Hi Steven,
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 09:42:19PM -0400, Steven Galgano wrote:
On 04/10/2014 06:29 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:19:40PM -0400, Steven Galgano wrote:
Add tuntap flow control support for use by back pressure routing
protocols. Setting the new
On 04/13/2014 10:14 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Steven, Brian,
thanks for reporting this issue.
Please see my comments below.
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:41:42PM -0400, Brian Adamson wrote:
To weigh in on the desire to have support (at least as an optional behavior)
for the legacy
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 09:28:51PM -0400, Steven Galgano wrote:
On 04/13/2014 10:14 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Steven, Brian,
thanks for reporting this issue.
Please see my comments below.
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:41:42PM -0400, Brian Adamson wrote:
To weigh in on the
To weigh in on the desire to have support (at least as an optional behavior)
for the legacy flow control behavior, there are many existing uses of it. Many
these are related to experimental purposes where the tuntap driver can be used
(with a little user space code) as a surrogate for a
To weigh in on the desire to have support (at least as an optional behavior)
for the legacy flow control behavior, there are many existing uses of it. Many
these are related to experimental purposes where the tuntap driver can be used
(with a little user space code) as a surrogate for a
On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 21:42 -0400, Steven Galgano wrote:
> On 04/10/2014 06:29 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:19:40PM -0400, Steven Galgano wrote:
> >> Add tuntap flow control support for use by back pressure routing
> >> protocols. Setting the new TUNSETIFF flag
On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 13:29 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:19:40PM -0400, Steven Galgano wrote:
> > Add tuntap flow control support for use by back pressure routing protocols.
> > Setting the new TUNSETIFF flag IFF_FLOW_CONTROL, will signal resources as
> >
On 04/10/2014 06:29 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:19:40PM -0400, Steven Galgano wrote:
>> Add tuntap flow control support for use by back pressure routing protocols.
>> Setting the new TUNSETIFF flag IFF_FLOW_CONTROL, will signal resources as
>> unavailable when the
On 04/10/2014 06:29 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:19:40PM -0400, Steven Galgano wrote:
Add tuntap flow control support for use by back pressure routing protocols.
Setting the new TUNSETIFF flag IFF_FLOW_CONTROL, will signal resources as
unavailable when the tx
On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 13:29 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:19:40PM -0400, Steven Galgano wrote:
Add tuntap flow control support for use by back pressure routing protocols.
Setting the new TUNSETIFF flag IFF_FLOW_CONTROL, will signal resources as
unavailable
On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 21:42 -0400, Steven Galgano wrote:
On 04/10/2014 06:29 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:19:40PM -0400, Steven Galgano wrote:
Add tuntap flow control support for use by back pressure routing
protocols. Setting the new TUNSETIFF flag
Add tuntap flow control support for use by back pressure routing protocols.
Setting the new TUNSETIFF flag IFF_FLOW_CONTROL, will signal resources as
unavailable when the tx queue limit is reached by issuing a
netif_tx_stop_all_queues() rather than discarding frames. A
Add tuntap flow control support for use by back pressure routing protocols.
Setting the new TUNSETIFF flag IFF_FLOW_CONTROL, will signal resources as
unavailable when the tx queue limit is reached by issuing a
netif_tx_stop_all_queues() rather than discarding frames. A
20 matches
Mail list logo
