On 6/24/2013 10:01 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote: >> There are many other latency/perf. reqs for NFV related to RT, >> essentially Guest must run near native. In the end it may turn out this >> may need to be outside of main tree we'll see. >> > It doesn't sound like this will be the end result. Everything that you > try to do in your patch set can be accomplished using VFIO and a more > generic infrastructure for virtual IRQ integration with KVM and user > space. I mentioned in previous email we will pursue VFIO, but even at that VFIO is a starting point for NFV. > > We should avoid creating an environment with important functionality > outside of the main tree, if at all possible. Of course that would be ideal but with NFV it may be more involved. This is similar Linux and TEM adaption around 04/05. We wanted to adapt Linux but it lacked required features that's when CGL specifications came into play to provide guidance a lot of features (TIPC, OpenIMPI, preempt_rt, AEM) lived outside mainline, supported by OS vendors delivering CGL compliant distro, while others decided to stick with IT, penetrating some applications like HLR. With NFV a likely scenario may evolve, TEMs need to start demonstrating to operators fixed and wireless virtualization use cases. The only significant difference is that unlike CGL for Linux, KVM has nor real representation and understanding of NFV reqs (as opposed to proprietary vendors). I can't speak for all TEMs but it's likely they will go off on their own to demo/proto-type and worry about Open Source acceptance later. > > -Christoffer > _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
