On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:17:23 +0300 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > The > > existing throttling approach ensures that if the event includes latest > > guest information, then the host doesn't even have to do do a query, and > > is guaranteed that reacting to the final event will always see the most > > recent request. But most importantly, if the existing throttling works, > > why do we have to invent a one-off approach for this event instead of > > reusing existing code? Sorry to restart this week old discussion, but I'm now reviewing the patch in question and I dislike how we're coupling the event and the query command. > Because of the 1st issue above. A large delay because we Has this been measured? How long is this large delay? Also, is it impossible for management to issue query-rx-filter on a reasonable rate that would also cause the same problems? IOW, how can we be sure we're fixing anything without trying it on a real use-case scenario? > exceed an arbitrary throttling rate would be bad > for the guest. Contrast with delay in e.g. > device delete event. > The throttling mechanism is good for events that host cares > about, not for events that guest cares about. > > > -- > > Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 > > Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org > > > > >
