On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 05:04:44PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:04:41 pm Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 25 August 2009, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 08/25/2009 05:22 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I think 2.6.32 is pushing it.
2.6.32 is pushing it, but we need to
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:04:41 pm Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 25 August 2009, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 08/25/2009 05:22 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I think 2.6.32 is pushing it.
2.6.32 is pushing it, but we need to push it.
Agreed.
Get real. It's not happening.
We need migration
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 05:04:44PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:04:41 pm Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 25 August 2009, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 08/25/2009 05:22 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I think 2.6.32 is pushing it.
2.6.32 is pushing it, but we need to
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 07:14:29AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 08/25/2009 05:22 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I think 2.6.32 is pushing it.
2.6.32 is pushing it, but we need to push it.
I think some time is needed to flush out the userspace interface. In
particular, I don't think Mark's
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 09:22:47PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:12:41AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
At Rusty's suggestion, I tested vhost base performance with ping.
Results below, and seem to be what you'd expect.
Rusty,
On Tuesday 25 August 2009, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 08/25/2009 05:22 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I think 2.6.32 is pushing it.
2.6.32 is pushing it, but we need to push it.
Agreed.
I think some time is needed to flush out the userspace interface. In
particular, I don't think Mark's
Avi Kivity wrote:
I think this is likely going to be needed regardless. I also think
the tap compatibility suggestion would simplify the consumption of
this in userspace.
What about veth pairs?
Does veth support GSO and checksum offload?
I'd like some time to look at get_state/set_state
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
My preference is ring proxying. Not we'll need ring proxying (or at
least event proxying) for non-MSI guests.
Exactly, that's what I meant earlier. That's enough, isn't it, Anthony?
It is if we have a working implementation that demonstrates the
userspace
Avi Kivity wrote:
My preference is ring proxying. Not we'll need ring proxying (or at
least event proxying) for non-MSI guests.
Thinking about this more...
How does the hand off work? Assuming you normally don't proxy ring
entries and switch to proxying them when you want to migration, do
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 08:08:05AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
My preference is ring proxying. Not we'll need ring proxying (or at
least event proxying) for non-MSI guests.
Exactly, that's what I meant earlier. That's enough, isn't it, Anthony?
It is
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 08:24:07AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
My preference is ring proxying. Not we'll need ring proxying (or at
least event proxying) for non-MSI guests.
Thinking about this more...
How does the hand off work? Assuming you normally don't proxy ring
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 08:06:39AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
I think this is likely going to be needed regardless. I also think
the tap compatibility suggestion would simplify the consumption of
this in userspace.
What about veth pairs?
Does veth support GSO and
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 08:08:05AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Once it goes into the upstream
kernel, we need to have backwards compatibility code in QEMU forever to
support that kernel version.
BTW, qemu can keep doing the userspace thing if some capability it needs
is missing. It won't
On 08/25/2009 04:08 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
My preference is ring proxying. Not we'll need ring proxying (or
at least event proxying) for non-MSI guests.
Exactly, that's what I meant earlier. That's enough, isn't it, Anthony?
It is if we have a working
At Rusty's suggestion, I tested vhost base performance with ping.
Results below, and seem to be what you'd expect. I'm working on TSO
support, expect results shortly.
latency with ping (lower is better):
native:
[r...@virtlab17 ~]# ping -c 100 -f -q 21.1.50.4
PING 21.1.50.4 (21.1.50.4)
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:12:41AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
At Rusty's suggestion, I tested vhost base performance with ping.
Results below, and seem to be what you'd expect.
Rusty, any chance you could look at the code? Is it in reasonable
shape? I think it makes sense to merge it
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:12:41AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
At Rusty's suggestion, I tested vhost base performance with ping.
Results below, and seem to be what you'd expect.
Rusty, any chance you could look at the code? Is it in reasonable
shape? I
On 08/25/2009 05:22 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I think 2.6.32 is pushing it.
2.6.32 is pushing it, but we need to push it.
I think some time is needed to flush out the userspace interface. In
particular, I don't think Mark's comments have been adequately
addressed. If a version were
18 matches
Mail list logo
