[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090817142310.GA3602@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:23:10 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
Cc: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus model for
vbus_driver objects
* Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> I think the reason vbus gets better performance for networking today
>>> is that vbus' backends are in the kernel while virtio's backends are
>>> currently in userspace. Since Michael has a functioning in-kernel
>>> backend for virtio-net now, I suspect we're weeks (maybe days) away
>>> from performance results. My expectation is that vhost + virtio-net
>>> will be as good as venet + vbus. If that's the case, then I don't
>>> see any reason to adopt vbus unless Greg things there are other
>>> compelling features over virtio.
>>>
>>
>> Keeping virtio's backend in user-space was rather stupid IMHO.
>
> I don't think it's quite so clear.
in such a narrow quote it's not so clear indeed - that's why i
qualified it with:
>> Having the _option_ to piggyback to user-space (for flexibility,
>> extensibility, etc.) is OK, but not having kernel acceleration is
>> bad.
Ingo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists