Date:	Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:56:48 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	"Ira W. Snyder" <iws@...o.caltech.edu>
CC:	Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...or.com,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, s.hetze@...ux-ag.com,
	alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 3/3] vhost_net: a kernel-level virtio server

On 09/22/2009 06:25 PM, Ira W. Snyder wrote:
>
>> Yes.  vbus is more finely layered so there is less code duplication.
>>
>> The virtio layering was more or less dictated by Xen which doesn't have
>> shared memory (it uses grant references instead).  As a matter of fact
>> lguest, kvm/pci, and kvm/s390 all have shared memory, as you do, so that
>> part is duplicated.  It's probably possible to add a virtio-shmem.ko
>> library that people who do have shared memory can reuse.
>>
>>      
> Seems like a nice benefit of vbus.
>    

Yes, it is.  With some work virtio can gain that too (virtio-shmem.ko).

>>> I've given it some thought, and I think that running vhost-net (or
>>> similar) on the ppc boards, with virtio-net on the x86 crate server will
>>> work. The virtio-ring abstraction is almost good enough to work for this
>>> situation, but I had to re-invent it to work with my boards.
>>>
>>> I've exposed a 16K region of memory as PCI BAR1 from my ppc board.
>>> Remember that this is the "host" system. I used each 4K block as a
>>> "device descriptor" which contains:
>>>
>>> 1) the type of device, config space, etc. for virtio
>>> 2) the "desc" table (virtio memory descriptors, see virtio-ring)
>>> 3) the "avail" table (available entries in the desc table)
>>>
>>>        
>> Won't access from x86 be slow to this memory (on the other hand, if you
>> change it to main memory access from ppc will be slow... really depends
>> on how your system is tuned.
>>
>>      
> Writes across the bus are fast, reads across the bus are slow. These are
> just the descriptor tables for memory buffers, not the physical memory
> buffers themselves.
>
> These only need to be written by the guest (x86), and read by the host
> (ppc). The host never changes the tables, so we can cache a copy in the
> guest, for a fast detach_buf() implementation (see virtio-ring, which
> I'm copying the design from).
>
> The only accesses are writes across the PCI bus. There is never a need
> to do a read (except for slow-path configuration).
>    

Okay, sounds like what you're doing it optimal then.

> In the spirit of "post early and often", I'm making my code available,
> that's all. I'm asking anyone interested for some review, before I have
> to re-code this for about the fifth time now. I'm trying to avoid
> Haskins' situation, where he's invented and debugged a lot of new code,
> and then been told to do it completely differently.
>
> Yes, the code I posted is only compile-tested, because quite a lot of
> code (kernel and userspace) must be working before anything works at
> all. I hate to design the whole thing, then be told that something
> fundamental about it is wrong, and have to completely re-write it.
>    

Understood.  Best to get a review from Rusty then.

-- 
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists