On (Wed) Jan 13 2010 [21:43:32], Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 04:41:48 pm Amit Shah wrote:
> > On (Mon) Jan 04 2010 [15:17:17], Amit Shah wrote:
> > > On (Mon) Jan 04 2010 [19:45:30], Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:04:28 am Amit Shah wrote:
> > > > > The console could be flooded with data from the host; handle this
> > > > > situation by buffering the data.
> > > >
> > > > Is this still true? If we only add_buf when we're ready, surely the
> > > > host
> > > > can't flood us with one virtqueue per port?
> > >
> > > I guess I meant something completely different. This message is
> > > definitely misleading and I'll re-word it.
> > >
> > > You're right; we don't need the 'guest throttling' feature that was
> > > needed earlier.
> >
> > BTW I meant this series doesn't have the guest throttling feature.
> >
> > Rusty, did you just have this comment for the series? If yes, I'll just
> > re-send this patch with a fixed description.
>
> I don't see why we ever allocate more than one incoming buffer though?
To prevent against a fast host app sending data to a slow guest
consumer.
Also, we use the in_vq for the buffering, so the number of buffers is
limited by the queue size that's declared by the host.
Amit
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
