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 > |-------------------------- > | vbus-proxy > |-------------------------- > | vbus-connector > |-------------------------- > | > (vbus) > | > |-------------------------- > | kvm.ko > |-------------------------- > | vbus-connector > |-------------------------- > | vbus > |-------------------------- > | virtio-net-tap (vbus model) > |-------------------------- > | netif > |-------------------------- > (host-side) > > > So virtio-net runs unmodified. What is "competing" here is "virtio-pci" vs "virtio-vbus". > Also, venet vs virtio-net are technically competing. But to say "virtio vs vbus" is inaccurate, IMO. I think what's confusing everyone is that you are competing on multiple issues: 1. Implementation of bus probing: both vbus and virtio are backed by PCI devices and can be backed by something else (e.g. virtio by lguest or even by vbus). 2. Exchange of metadata: virtio uses a config space, vbus uses devcall to do the same. 3. User data transport: virtio has virtqueues, vbus has shm/ioq. I think these three are the main differences, and the venet vs. virtio-net question comes down to which interface the drivers use for each aspect. Do you agree with this interpretation? Now to draw conclusions from each of these is of course highly subjective, but this is how I view it: 1. The bus probing is roughly equivalent, they both work and the virtio method seems to need a little less code but that could be fixed by slimming down the vbus code as I mentioned in my comments on the pci-to-vbus bridge code. However, I would much prefer not to have both of them, and virtio came first. 2. the two methods (devcall/config space) are more or less equivalent and you should be able to implement each one through the other one. The virtio design was driven by making it look similar to PCI, the vbus design was driven by making it easy to implement in a host kernel. I don't care too much about these, as they can probably coexist without causing any trouble. For a (hypothetical) vbus-in-virtio device, a devcall can be a config-set/config-get pair, for a virtio-in-vbus, you can do a config-get and a config-set devcall and be happy. Each could be done in a trivial helper library. 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 devices, alongside virtqueues, but to leave out the extra bus_type and probing method. Arnd <>< -- 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
