On Thursday 19 February 2009 02:54:06 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 18 February 2009, Rusty Russell wrote:
2) Direct NIC attachment
This is particularly interesting with SR-IOV or other multiqueue nics,
but for boutique cases or benchmarks, could be for normal NICs. So
far I have
On Thursday 19 February 2009 10:01:42 Simon Horman wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:08:00PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
2) Direct NIC attachment This is particularly interesting with SR-IOV or
other multiqueue nics, but for boutique cases or benchmarks, could be for
normal NICs. So far
* Simon Horman (ho...@verge.net.au) wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:08:00PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
2) Direct NIC attachment This is particularly interesting with SR-IOV or
other multiqueue nics, but for boutique cases or benchmarks, could be for
normal NICs. So far I have some very
On Thursday 19 February 2009, Rusty Russell wrote:
Not quite: I think PCI passthrough IMHO is the *wrong* way to do it:
it makes migrate complicated (if not impossible), and requires
emulation or the same NIC on the destination host.
This would be the *host* seeing the virtual functions
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:06:17PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Thursday 19 February 2009 10:01:42 Simon Horman wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:08:00PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
2) Direct NIC attachment This is particularly interesting with SR-IOV or
other multiqueue nics, but
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:08:00PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
4) Multiple queues
This is Herbert's. Should be fairly simple to add; it was in the back of my
mind when we started. Not sure whether the queues should be static or
dynamic (imagine direct interguest networking, one queue pair
On Wednesday 18 February 2009, Rusty Russell wrote:
2) Direct NIC attachment
This is particularly interesting with SR-IOV or other multiqueue nics,
but for boutique cases or benchmarks, could be for normal NICs. So
far I have some very sketched-out patches: for the attached nic
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:08:00PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
2) Direct NIC attachment This is particularly interesting with SR-IOV or
other multiqueue nics, but for boutique cases or benchmarks, could be for
normal NICs. So far I have some very sketched-out patches: for the
attached nic
Simon Horman wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:08:00PM +1030, Rusty Russell
wrote:
2) Direct NIC attachment This is particularly
interesting with SR-IOV or other multiqueue nics, but
for boutique cases or benchmarks, could be for normal
NICs. So far I have some very sketched-out patches:
From: Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 12:56:06 +0100
Having the load spread evenly over all guests sounds like a much rarer
use case.
Totally agreed.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More
Herbert Xu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 02:37:07PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
I believe that copyless networking is absolutely essential.
I used to think it was important, but I'm now of the opinion
that it's quite useless for virtualisation as it stands.
For transmit, copyless is
Herbert Xu wrote:
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 10:46:37AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
The guest's block layer is copyless. The host block layer is -- this
far from being copyless -- all we need is preadv()/pwritev() or to
replace our thread pool implementation in qemu with linux-aio.
Chris Wright wrote:
There's been a number of different discussions re: getting copyless virtio
net (esp. for KVM). This is just a poke in that general direction to
stir the discussion. I'm interested to hear current thoughts
I believe that copyless networking is absolutely essential.
For
Avi Kivity wrote:
Chris Wright wrote:
There's been a number of different discussions re: getting copyless
virtio
net (esp. for KVM). This is just a poke in that general direction to
stir the discussion. I'm interested to hear current thoughts
I believe that copyless networking is
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 02:37:07PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
I believe that copyless networking is absolutely essential.
I used to think it was important, but I'm now of the opinion
that it's quite useless for virtualisation as it stands.
For transmit, copyless is needed to properly support
There's been a number of different discussions re: getting copyless virtio
net (esp. for KVM). This is just a poke in that general direction to
stir the discussion. I'm interested to hear current thoughts?
thanks
-chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the
16 matches
Mail list logo
