lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:22:29 +0200 From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>, Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, "alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" <alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] AlacrityVM guest drivers for 2.6.33 On 12/23/2009 12:13 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: >> i.e. it has all the makings of a stupid, avoidable, permanent fork. The thing >> > Nearly. There was no equivalent of a kernel based virtual driver host > before. > These are guest drivers. We have virtio drivers, and Xen drivers (which are Xen-specific). >> - Are a pure software concept and any compatibility mismatch is >> self-inflicted. The patches are in fact breaking the ABI to KVM >> > In practice, especially considering older kernel releases, VMs > behave like hardware, with all its quirks, compatibility requirements, > sometimes not fully understood, etc. > There was no attempt by Gregory to improve virtio-net. >> It's a bit as if someone found a performance problem with sys_open() and came >> up with sys_open_v2() and claimed that he wants to work with the VFS >> developers while not really doing so but advances sys_open_v2() all the time. >> > AFAIK Gregory tried for several months to work with the KVM maintainers, > but failed at their NIH filter. > It was the backwards compatibility, live migration, unneeded complexity, and scalability filters from where I sit. vbus fails on all four. >> The main difference is that Gregory claims that improved performance is not >> possible within the existing KVM framework, while the KVM developers disagree. >> The good news is that this is a hard, testable fact. >> > Yes clearly the onus at this point is on the vhost-net developers/ > "pci is all that is ever needed for PV" proponents to show similar numbers > with their current code. > > If they can show the same performance there's really no need for > the alacrityvm model (or at least I haven't seen a convincing reason > other than performance so far to have a separate model) > Anthony posted this: http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/summit/cwright_11_open_source_virt.pdf See slide 32. This is without vhost-net. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists