Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:12:41AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
At Rusty's suggestion, I tested vhost base performance with ping.
Results below, and seem to be what you'd expect.
Rusty, any chance you could look at the code? Is it in reasonable
shape? I think it makes sense to merge it through you. What do you
think? One comment on file placement: I put files under a separate
vhost directory to avoid confusion with virtio-net which runs in guest.
Does this sound sane? Also, can a minimal version (without TSO, tap or
any other features) be merged upstream first so that features can be
added later? Or do we have to wait until it's more full featured?
Finally, can it reasonably make 2.6.32, or you think it needs more time
out of tree?
I think 2.6.32 is pushing it. I think some time is needed to flush out
the userspace interface. In particular, I don't think Mark's comments
have been adequately addressed. If a version were merged without GSO
support, some mechanism to do feature detection would be needed in the
userspace API. I think this is likely going to be needed regardless. I
also think the tap compatibility suggestion would simplify the
consumption of this in userspace.
I'd like some time to look at get_state/set_state ioctl()s along with
dirty tracking support. It's a much better model for live migration IMHO.
I think so more thorough benchmarking would be good too. In particular,
netperf/iperf runs would be nice.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
Thanks very much,
--
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
