On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 05:38:01PM -0500, Jesse Gross wrote: [ snip ] > > I know that everyone likes a nice netperf result but I agree with > Michael that this probably isn't the right question to be asking. I > don't think that socket buffers are a real solution to the flow > control problem: they happen to provide that functionality but it's > more of a side effect than anything. It's just that the amount of > memory consumed by packets in the queue(s) doesn't really have any > implicit meaning for flow control (think multiple physical adapters, > all with the same speed instead of a virtual device and a physical > device with wildly different speeds). The analog in the physical > world that you're looking for would be Ethernet flow control. > Obviously, if the question is limiting CPU or memory consumption then > that's a different story. Point taken. I will see if I can control CPU (and thus memory) consumption using cgroups and/or tc. > This patch also double counts memory, since the full size of the > packet will be accounted for by each clone, even though they share the > actual packet data. Probably not too significant here but it might be > when flooding/mirroring to many interfaces. This is at least fixable > (the Xen-style accounting through page tracking deals with it, though > it has its own problems). Agreed on all counts. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
