Rusty Russell wrote: > On Friday 07 November 2008 18:17:54 Zhao, Yu wrote: > > Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 04:40:21PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > >> Greg KH wrote: > > >>> On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 10:47:41AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > >>>> I don't think we really know what the One True Usage model is for VF > > >>>> devices. Chris Wright has some ideas, I have some ideas and Yu Zhao > > >>>> has some ideas. I bet there's other people who have other ideas too. > > >>> > > >>> I'd love to hear those ideas. > > >> > > >> We've been talking about avoiding hardware passthrough entirely and > > >> just backing a virtio-net backend driver by a dedicated VF in the > > >> host. That avoids a huge amount of guest-facing complexity, let's > > >> migration Just Work, and should give the same level of performance. > > > > This can be commonly used not only with VF -- devices that have multiple > > DMA queues (e.g., Intel VMDq, Neterion Xframe) and even traditional > > devices can also take the advantage of this. > > > > CC Rusty Russel in case he has more comments. > > Yes, even dumb devices could use this mechanism if you wanted to bind an > entire device solely to one guest. > > We don't have network infrastructure for this today, but my thought was > to do something in dev_alloc_skb and dev_kfree_skb et al. Is there any discussion about this on the netdev? Any prototype available? If not, I'd like to create one and evaluate the performance of virtio-net solution again the hardware passthrough. Thanks, Yu _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
