Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus model for vbus_driver objects

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

This will generally be used for hypervisors to publish any host-side
virtual devices up to a guest.  The guest will have the opportunity
to consume any devices present on the vbus-proxy as if they were
platform devices, similar to existing buses like PCI.

Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@xxxxxxxxxx>
---

 MAINTAINERS                 |    6 ++
 arch/x86/Kconfig            |    2 +
drivers/Makefile | 1 drivers/vbus/Kconfig | 14 ++++
 drivers/vbus/Makefile       |    3 +
 drivers/vbus/bus-proxy.c    |  152 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 include/linux/vbus_driver.h |   73 +++++++++++++++++++++
 7 files changed, 251 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 drivers/vbus/Kconfig
 create mode 100644 drivers/vbus/Makefile
 create mode 100644 drivers/vbus/bus-proxy.c
 create mode 100644 include/linux/vbus_driver.h

Is there a consensus on this with the KVM folks? (i've added the KVM list to the Cc:)

I'll let Avi comment about it from a KVM perspective but from a QEMU perspective, I don't think we want to support two paravirtual IO frameworks. I'd like to see them converge. Since there's an install base of guests today with virtio drivers, there really ought to be a compelling reason to change the virtio ABI in a non-backwards compatible way. This means convergence really ought to be adding features to virtio.

On paper, I don't think vbus really has any features over virtio. vbus does things in different ways (paravirtual bus vs. pci for discovery) but I think we're happy with how virtio does things today.

I think the reason vbus gets better performance for networking today is that vbus' backends are in the kernel while virtio's backends are currently in userspace. Since Michael has a functioning in-kernel backend for virtio-net now, I suspect we're weeks (maybe days) away from performance results. My expectation is that vhost + virtio-net will be as good as venet + vbus. If that's the case, then I don't see any reason to adopt vbus unless Greg things there are other compelling features over virtio.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

	Ingo
--
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

--
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

[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux