On 08/06/2009 07:55 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
Based on this, I will continue my efforts surrounding to use of vbus including
its use to accelerate KVM for AlacrityVM. If I can find a way to do this in
such a way that KVM upstream finds acceptable, I would be very happy and will
work towards
[not sure if it was intentional, but you dropped the CC list.
Therefore, I didn't see this until I caught up on my k...@vger reading]
Pantelis Koukousoulas wrote:
How hard would it be to implement virtio over vbus and perhaps the
virtio-net backend?
It should be relatively trivial. I have
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
This series includes the basic plumbing, as well as the driver for
accelerated 802.x (ethernet) networking.
The graphs comparing virtio with vbus look interesting.
1gbit throughput on a 10gbit link? I have a hard time believing that.
I've seen much
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 01:17:30PM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
(Applies to v2.6.31-rc5, proposed for linux-next after review is complete)
These are guest drivers, right? Merging the guest first means relying on
kernel interface from an out of tree driver, which well might change
before it goes
On 8/6/2009 at 6:17 AM, in message 20090806101702.ga10...@redhat.com,
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 11:19:56AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 01:17:30PM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
(Applies to v2.6.31-rc5, proposed for
On 08/06/2009 03:08 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
Merging the guest first means relying on
kernel interface from an out of tree driver, which well might change
before it goes in.
ABI compatibility is already addressed/handled, so even if that is true its not
a problem.
Really the
On 8/6/2009 at 8:24 AM, in message 20090806122449.gc11...@redhat.com,
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 06:08:27AM -0600, Gregory Haskins wrote:
Hi Michael,
On 8/6/2009 at 4:19 AM, in message 20090806081955.ga9...@redhat.com,
Michael S. Tsirkin
On 8/6/2009 at 8:54 AM, in message 4a7ad29e.50...@redhat.com, Avi Kivity
a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 08/06/2009 03:08 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
Merging the guest first means relying on
kernel interface from an out of tree driver, which well might change
before it goes in.
ABI
On 08/06/2009 04:03 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
It's true that vbus is a separate project (in fact even virtio is
completely separate from kvm). Still I think it would be of interest to
many kvm@ readers.
Well, my goal was to not annoy KVM readers. ;) So if you feel as though there
is
On 8/6/2009 at 9:44 AM, in message 4a7ade23.5010...@redhat.com, Avi
Kivity
a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 08/06/2009 04:03 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
It's true that vbus is a separate project (in fact even virtio is
completely separate from kvm). Still I think it would be of interest to
many
On 08/06/2009 04:45 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
(though still rooting for virtio).
Heh...not to belabor the point to death, but virtio is orthogonal (you keep
forgetting that ;).
Its really the vbus device-model vs the qemu device-model (and possibly vs the
in-kernel pci emulation
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 07:45:30AM -0600, Gregory Haskins wrote:
(though still rooting for virtio).
Heh...not to belabor the point to death, but virtio is orthogonal (you keep
forgetting that ;).
venet and virtio aren't orthogonal, are they?
--
MST
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On 8/6/2009 at 9:57 AM, in message 4a7ae150.7040...@redhat.com, Avi
Kivity
a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 08/06/2009 04:45 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
(though still rooting for virtio).
Heh...not to belabor the point to death, but virtio is orthogonal (you keep
forgetting that ;).
On 8/6/2009 at 9:59 AM, in message 20090806135903.ga11...@redhat.com,
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 07:45:30AM -0600, Gregory Haskins wrote:
(though still rooting for virtio).
Heh...not to belabor the point to death, but virtio is orthogonal (you keep
On Thursday 06 August 2009, Gregory Haskins wrote:
We can exchange out the virtio-pci module like this:
(guest-side)
|--
| virtio-net
|--
| virtio-ring
|--
| virtio-bus
|--
| virtio-vbus
On 08/06/2009 06:40 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
3. The ioq method seems to be the real core of your work that makes
venet perform better than virtio-net with its virtqueues. I don't see
any reason to doubt that your claim is correct. My conclusion from
this would be to add support for ioq to virtio
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 05:40:04PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
3. The ioq method seems to be the real core of your work that makes
venet perform better than virtio-net with its virtqueues. I don't see
any reason to doubt that your claim is correct. My conclusion from
this would be to add
How hard would it be to implement virtio over vbus and perhaps the
virtio-net backend?
This would leave only one variable in the comparison, clear misconceptions and
make evaluation easier by judging each of vbus, venet etc separately on its own
merits.
The way things are now, it is unclear
On 8/6/2009 at 11:40 AM, in message 200908061740.04276.a...@arndb.de, Arnd
Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Thursday 06 August 2009, Gregory Haskins wrote:
We can exchange out the virtio-pci module like this:
(guest-side)
|--
| virtio-net
On 8/6/2009 at 11:50 AM, in message 4a7afbe3.5080...@redhat.com, Avi
Kivity
a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 08/06/2009 06:40 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
3. The ioq method seems to be the real core of your work that makes
venet perform better than virtio-net with its virtqueues. I don't see
any
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 10:29:08AM -0600, Gregory Haskins wrote:
On 8/6/2009 at 11:40 AM, in message 200908061740.04276.a...@arndb.de,
Arnd
Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Thursday 06 August 2009, Gregory Haskins wrote:
[ big snip ]
3. The ioq method seems to be the real core of
21 matches
Mail list logo
