Re: [PATCH] Work around dhclient brokenness

2008-08-18 Thread Chris Wedgwood
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 10:45:20AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > For those not following closely: We already have a method for the > guest to accept or reject features. Our problem is that the guest > is already accepting the CSUM feature: but one critical userspace > app (dhcp-client) can't actu

Re: [PATCH] Work around dhclient brokenness

2008-08-18 Thread Chris Wedgwood
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 02:41:01PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > They need to do both. This way if they don't, it still works, but > networking is at a penalty (no CSUM offload). CSUM2 sounds so ugly though. Features seem to get added and never removed how about if this had a documented sh

Re: [PATCH] Work around dhclient brokenness

2008-08-18 Thread Chris Wedgwood
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 03:17:08PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > All we need is a simple toggle to disable checksum offload. Every > NIC that offers receive checksum offload allows it to be disabled. > virtio shouldn't be any different. So why CSUM2 and not an ethtool interface then? -- To unsubscr

Re: [PATCH] Work around dhclient brokenness

2008-08-19 Thread Chris Wedgwood
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 07:10:44PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > We need both. CSUM2 is the new virtio-level feature. Perhaps that's what I'm misisng. How is this different to CSUM? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] M

Re: Virtio network performance problem

2008-12-03 Thread Chris Wedgwood
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 02:11:45PM -0500, Adrian Schmitz wrote: > Iperf shows throughput of ~120 Mb/s between a Windows Server 2003 x64 > guest and the br0 interface on the host. Also, a ping between the same > two interfaces looks pretty bad: > > Pinging 10.10.10.128 with 32 bytes of data: > Repl

Re: Virtio network performance problem

2008-12-03 Thread Chris Wedgwood
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 11:20:08AM -0800, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > TSC instability? Is this an SMP guest? Actually, worded badly. A UP guest on an SMP host with unsync'ed TSCs would show this too obviously. As would changes in the TSC speed. The first I guess we can avoid by pinn

Re: [PATCH 1/3] kvm: fix irq 0 assignment

2009-03-04 Thread Chris Wedgwood
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 03:54:27PM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote: > Shouldn't update assigned irq if host irq is 0, which means > uninitialized or don't support INTx. Is that generally true? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.ker