[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20081215.142918.190909950.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:29:18 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: anthony@...emonkey.ws
Cc: gleb@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] AF_VMCHANNEL address family for guest<->host
communication.
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:44:26 -0600
> We want this communication mechanism to be simple and reliable as we
> want to implement the backends drivers in the host userspace with
> minimum mess.
One implication of your statement here is that TCP is unreliable.
That's absolutely not true.
> Within the guest, we need the interface to be always available and
> we need an addressing scheme that is hypervisor specific. Yes, we
> can build this all on top of TCP/IP. We could even build it on top
> of a serial port. Both have their down-sides wrt reliability and
> complexity.
I don't know of any zero-copy through the hypervisor mechanisms for
serial ports, but I know we do that with the various virtualization
network devices.
> Do you have another recommendation?
I don't have to make alternative recommendations until you can
show that what we have can't solve the problem acceptably, and
TCP emphatically can.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists