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

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

Message-ID: <4B372912.9050704@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:29:54 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, 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 12/24/2009 11:31 AM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> On 12/23/09 3:36 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>    
>> On 12/23/2009 06:44 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>>      
>>>        
>>>>    - Are a pure software concept
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> By design.  In fact, I would describe it as "software to software
>>> optimized" as opposed to trying to shoehorn into something that was
>>> designed as a software-to-hardware interface (and therefore has
>>> assumptions about the constraints in that environment that are not
>>> applicable in software-only).
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> And that's the biggest mistake you can make.
>>      
> Sorry, that is just wrong or you wouldn't have virtio either.
>    

Things are not black and white.  I prefer not to have paravirtualization 
at all.  When there is no alternative, I prefer to limit it to the 
device level and keep it off the bus level.

>>   Look at Xen, for
>> instance.  The paravirtualized the fork out of everything that moved in
>> order to get x86 virt going.  And where are they now? x86_64 syscalls
>> are slow since they have to trap to the hypervisor and (partially) flush
>> the tlb.  With npt or ept capable hosts performance is better for many
>> workloads on fullvirt.  And paravirt doesn't support Windows.  Their
>> unsung hero Jeremy is still trying to upstream dom0 Xen support.  And
>> they get to support it forever.
>>      
> We are only talking about PV-IO here, so not apples to apples to what
> Xen is going through.
>    

The same principles apply.

>> VMware stuck with the hardware defined interfaces.  Sure they had to
>> implement binary translation to get there, but as a result, they only
>> have to support one interface, all guests support it, and they can drop
>> it on newer hosts where it doesn't give them anything.
>>      
> Again, you are confusing PV-IO.  Not relevant here.   Afaict, vmware,
> kvm, xen, etc, all still do PV-IO and likely will for the foreseeable
> future.
>    

They're all doing it very differently:

- pure emulation (qemu e1000, etc.)
- pci device (vmware, virtio/pci)
- paravirt bus bridged through a pci device (Xen hvm, Hyper-V (I think), 
venet/vbus)
- paravirt bus (Xen pv, early vbus, virtio/lguest, virtio/s390)

The higher you are up this scale the easier things are, so once you get 
reasonable performance there is no need to descend further.

-- 
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/