linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] AlacrityVM guest drivers for 2.6.33

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <4B31EF65.6070000@redhat.com>
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 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/