On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 02:45:11AM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > Hi Anthony. > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 05:01:14PM -0600, Anthony Liguori (anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > Yes, and I went down the road of using a dedicated network device and > > using raw ethernet as the protocol. The thing that killed that was the > > fact that it's not reliable. You need something like TCP to add > > reliability. > > > > But that's a lot of work and a bit backwards. Use a unreliable > > transport but use TCP on top of it to get reliability. Our link > > (virtio) is inherently reliable so why not just expose a reliable > > interface to userspace? > > I removed original mail and did not check archive, but doesn't rx/tx > queues of the virtio device have limited size? I do hope they have, > which means that either your network drops packets or blocks. > It blocks. > Another approach is to implement that virtio backend with netlink based > userspace interface (like using connector or genetlink). This does not > differ too much from what you have with special socket family, but at > least it does not duplicate existing functionality of > userspace-kernelspace communications. > I implemented vmchannel using connector initially (the downside is that message can be dropped). Is this more expectable for upstream? The implementation was 300 lines of code. -- Gleb. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
