Hi Michael, >>> On 8/6/2009 at 4:19 AM, in message <20090806081955.GA9752@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? Yep. > 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. > Would it make more sense to start merging with the host side of the project? Not necessarily, no. These are drivers for a "device", so its no different than merging any other driver really. This is especially true since the hypervisor is also already published and freely available today, so anyone can start using it. > >> This series implements the guest-side drivers for accelerated IO >> when running on top of the AlacrityVM hypervisor, the details of >> which you can find here: >> >> http://developer.novell.com/wiki/index.php/AlacrityVM > > Since AlacrityVM is kvm based, Cc kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I *can* do that, but there is nothing in these drivers that is KVM specific (its all pure PCI and VBUS). I've already made the general announcement about the project/ml cross posted to KVM for anyone that might be interested, but I figure I will spare the general KVM list the details unless something specifically pertains to, or affects, KVM. For instance, when I get to pushing the hypervisor side, I still need to work on getting that 'xinterface' patch to you guys. I would certainly be CC'ing kvm@vger when that happens since it modifies the KVM code. So instead, I would just encourage anyone interested (such as yourself) to join the alacrity list so I don't bother the KVM community unless absolutely necessary. > >> 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. > However, they do not compare apples to apples, do they? Yes, I believe they do. They represent the best that KVM has to offer (to my knowledge) vs the best that alacrityvm has to offer. > These compare userspace virtio with kernel vbus, vbus is a device model (akin to QEMU's device model). Technically, it was a comparison of userspace virtio-net (via QEMU), to kernel venet (via vbus), which I again stress is the state of the art for both to my knowledge. As I have explained before in earlier threads on kvm@vger, virtio is not mutually exclusive here. You can run the virtio protocol over the vbus model if someone were so inclined. In fact, I proposed this very idea to you a month or two ago but I believe you decided to go your own way and reinvent some other in-kernel model instead for your own reasons. >where for apples to apples comparison one would need to compare > kernel virtio with kernel vbus. Right? Again, it already *is* apples to apples as far as I am concerned. At the time I ran those numbers, there was certainly no in-kernel virtio model to play with. And to my knowledge, there isn't one now (I was never CC'd on the patches, and a cursory search of the KVM list isn't revealing one that was posted recently). To reiterate: kernel virtio-net (using ??) to kernel venet (vbus based) to kernel virtio-net (vbus, but doesnt exist yet) would be a fun bakeoff. If you have something for the kernel virtio-net, point me at it and I will try to include it in the comparison next time. Kind Regards, -Greg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
