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, > > _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
