linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] AlacrityVM guest drivers Reply-To:

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4A7AFBE3.5080200@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:50:59 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] AlacrityVM guest drivers Reply-To:

On 08/06/2009 06:40 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 3. The ioq method seems to be the real core of your work that makes
> venet perform better than virtio-net with its virtqueues. I don't see
> any reason to doubt that your claim is correct. My conclusion from
> this would be to add support for ioq to virtio devices, alongside
> virtqueues, but to leave out the extra bus_type and probing method.
>    

The current conjecture is that ioq outperforms virtio because the host 
side of ioq is implemented in the host kernel, while the host side of 
virtio is implemented in userspace.  AFAIK, no one pointed out 
differences in the protocol which explain the differences in performance.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/