Ingo Molnar wrote:
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.
Keeping virtio's backend in user-space was rather stupid IMHO.
I don't think it's quite so clear.
There's nothing about vhost_net that would prevent a userspace
application from using it as a higher performance replacement for tun/tap.
The fact that we can avoid userspace for most of the fast paths is nice
but that's really an issue of vhost_net vs. tun/tap.
From the kernel's perspective, a KVM guest is just a userspace
process. Having new userspace interfaces that are only useful to KVM
guests would be a bad thing.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
--
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
