> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 08:23:21PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > From: "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> > Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 22:30:32 +0200
> >
> > > qemu runs in the host, but it's unpriveledged: it gets
> > > passed tun FDs by a priveledged daemon, and it only
> > > has the rights to some operati
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 08:23:21PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 22:30:32 +0200
>
> > qemu runs in the host, but it's unpriveledged: it gets
> > passed tun FDs by a priveledged daemon, and it only
> > has the rights to some operations,
> > in par
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:23:05AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On 11/23/2014 06:46 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:44:27PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 03:16:28PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> >>> > > From: Pankaj Gupta
> >>> > > Date:
On 11/23/2014 06:46 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:44:27PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 03:16:28PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>>> > > From: Pankaj Gupta
>>> > > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 21:52:54 +0530
>>> > >
> > > - Accept maximum n
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin"
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 22:30:32 +0200
> qemu runs in the host, but it's unpriveledged: it gets
> passed tun FDs by a priveledged daemon, and it only
> has the rights to some operations,
> in particular to attach and detach queues.
>
> The assumption always was that thi
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 01:43:23PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 12:46:23 +0200
>
> > At the moment attaching/detaching queues is an unpriveledged operation.
> >
> > Shouldn't we worry that an application can cause large
> > allocations, and pro
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin"
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 12:46:23 +0200
> At the moment attaching/detaching queues is an unpriveledged operation.
>
> Shouldn't we worry that an application can cause large
> allocations, and provide a way to limit these?
>
> David, could you comment on this please?
I
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:44:27PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 03:16:28PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Pankaj Gupta
> > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 21:52:54 +0530
> >
> > > - Accept maximum number of queues as sysctl param so that any user space
> > > applicat
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 03:16:28PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Pankaj Gupta
> > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 21:52:54 +0530
> >
> > > - Accept maximum number of queues as sysctl param so that any user space
> > > application like libvirt can use this value to limit number of queues.
> > >
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 03:16:28PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Pankaj Gupta
> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 21:52:54 +0530
>
> > - Accept maximum number of queues as sysctl param so that any user space
> > application like libvirt can use this value to limit number of queues.
> > Also
> > A
From: Pankaj Gupta
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 21:52:54 +0530
> - Accept maximum number of queues as sysctl param so that any user space
> application like libvirt can use this value to limit number of queues. Also
> Administrators can specify maximum number of queues by updating this sysctl
>
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
> Networking under KVM works best if we allocate a per-vCPU rx and tx
> queue in a virtual NIC. This requires a per-vCPU queue on the host side.
...
> I have done some testing to find out any regression and with sample program
> which creates t
This patch series is followup to the RFC posted as:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/18/392
Changes from RFC are:
PATCH 1: Sergei Shtylyov - Add an empty line after declarations.
PATCH 2: Jiri Pirko - Do not introduce new module paramaters.
Michael.S.Tsirkin - We can use sysctl for limiting m
13 matches
Mail list logo
