On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:23:46 am Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 13 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
The best way to do this IMO would be to add zero copy support to raw
sockets, vhost will then get it basically for free.
Yes, that would be nice. I wonder if that could lead to
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 07:59:47PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
The trick is to swap the virtqueues instead. virtio-net is actually
mostly symmetric in just the same way that the physical wires on a
twisted pair ethernet are symmetric (I like how that analogy fits).
You need to really squint
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 02:27:31PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
As I pointed out earlier, most code in virtio net is asymmetrical: guest
provides buffers, host consumes them. Possibly, one could use virtio
rings in a symmetrical way, but support of existing guest virtio
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 02:22:38PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
We discussed this before, and I still think this could be directly derived
from struct virtqueue, in the same way that vring_virtqueue is derived from
struct virtqueue.
I prefer keeping it
On Wednesday 12 August 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote:
At any rate, I'd like to see performance results before we consider
trying to reuse virtio code.
Yes, I agree. I'd also like to do more work on the macvlan extensions
to see if it works out without involving a socket. Passing the socket
into
On Thursday 13 August 2009, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Unfortunately, this also implies that you could no longer simply use the
packet socket interface as you do currently, as I realized only now.
This obviously has a significant impact on your user space interface.
Also, if we do the copy in the
On Thursday 13 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 07:59:47PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
The trick is to swap the virtqueues instead. virtio-net is actually
mostly symmetric in just the same way that the physical wires on a
twisted pair ethernet are symmetric (I
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 03:38:43PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 13 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 07:59:47PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
The trick is to swap the virtqueues instead. virtio-net is actually
mostly symmetric in just the same way
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 03:48:35PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 13 August 2009, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Unfortunately, this also implies that you could no longer simply use the
packet socket interface as you do currently, as I realized only now.
This obviously has a significant
On Thursday 13 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
The best way to do this IMO would be to add zero copy support to raw
sockets, vhost will then get it basically for free.
Yes, that would be nice. I wonder if that could lead to security
problems on TX though. I guess It will only bring
On Thursday 13 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Right now, the number of copy operations in your code is the same.
You are doing the copy a little bit later in skb_copy_datagram_iovec(),
which is indeed a very nice hack. Changing to a virtqueue based method
would imply that the host
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 04:58:06PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 13 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Right now, the number of copy operations in your code is the same.
You are doing the copy a little bit later in skb_copy_datagram_iovec(),
which is indeed a very nice
On 08/13/2009 05:53 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 13 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
The best way to do this IMO would be to add zero copy support to raw
sockets, vhost will then get it basically for free.
Yes, that would be nice. I wonder if that could lead to
On Monday 10 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
+struct workqueue_struct *vhost_workqueue;
[nitpicking] This could be static.
+/* The virtqueue structure describes a queue attached to a device. */
+struct vhost_virtqueue {
+ struct vhost_dev *dev;
+
+ /* The actual ring of
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 07:03:22PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 10 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
+struct workqueue_struct *vhost_workqueue;
[nitpicking] This could be static.
+/* The virtqueue structure describes a queue attached to a device. */
+struct
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 07:03:22PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 10 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
+struct workqueue_struct *vhost_workqueue;
[nitpicking] This could be static.
Good catch. Thanks!
+/* The virtqueue structure describes a queue attached to a device. */
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:19:22AM -0700, Ira W. Snyder wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 07:03:22PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 10 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
+struct workqueue_struct *vhost_workqueue;
[nitpicking] This could be static.
+/* The virtqueue
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 08:31:04PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:19:22AM -0700, Ira W. Snyder wrote:
[ snip out code ]
We discussed this before, and I still think this could be directly derived
from struct virtqueue, in the same way that vring_virtqueue
On Wednesday 12 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 07:03:22PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
We discussed this before, and I still think this could be directly derived
from struct virtqueue, in the same way that vring_virtqueue is derived from
struct virtqueue.
I
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
We discussed this before, and I still think this could be directly derived
from struct virtqueue, in the same way that vring_virtqueue is derived from
struct virtqueue.
I prefer keeping it simple. Much of abstraction in virtio is due to the
fact that it needs to
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
As I pointed out earlier, most code in virtio net is asymmetrical: guest
provides buffers, host consumes them. Possibly, one could use virtio
rings in a symmetrical way, but support of existing guest virtio net
means there's almost no shared code.
The trick is to
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 09:53:40PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
What it is: vhost net is a character device that can be used to reduce
the number of system calls involved in virtio networking.
Existing virtio net code is used in the guest without modification.
There's similarity with
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:48:21AM -0700, Ira W. Snyder wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 08:31:04PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:19:22AM -0700, Ira W. Snyder wrote:
[ snip out code ]
We discussed this before, and I still think this could be directly
What it is: vhost net is a character device that can be used to reduce
the number of system calls involved in virtio networking.
Existing virtio net code is used in the guest without modification.
There's similarity with vringfd, with some differences and reduced scope
- uses eventfd for
On Monday 10 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
What it is: vhost net is a character device that can be used to reduce
the number of system calls involved in virtio networking.
Existing virtio net code is used in the guest without modification.
Very nice, I loved reading it. It's getting
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 09:51:18PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 10 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
What it is: vhost net is a character device that can be used to reduce
the number of system calls involved in virtio networking.
Existing virtio net code is used in the guest
On Monday 10 August 2009 20:10:44 Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 09:51:18PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
what is the difference between vhost_net_reset_owner(n)
and vhost_net_set_socket(n, -1)?
set socket to -1 will only stop the device.
reset owner will let another
27 matches
Mail list logo
