[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180627111143.32651114.cohuck@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 11:11:43 +0200
From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Siwei Liu <loseweigh@...il.com>,
"Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, aaron.f.brown@...el.com,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>,
Venu Busireddy <venu.busireddy@...cle.com>,
vijay.balakrishna@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qemu: Introduce
VIRTIO_NET_F_STANDBY feature bit to virtio_net
On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 20:50:20 +0300
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 05:08:13PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:05:04 -0700
> > Siwei Liu <loseweigh@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 3:33 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > > I suspect the diveregence will be lost on most users though
> > > > simply because they don't even care about vfio. They just
> > > > want things to go fast.
> > >
> > > Like Jason said, VF isn't faster than virtio-net in all cases. It
> > > depends on the workload and performance metrics: throughput, latency,
> > > or packet per second.
> >
> > So, will it be guest/admin-controllable then where the traffic flows
> > through? Just because we do have a vf available after negotiation of
> > the feature bit, it does not necessarily mean we want to use it? Do we
> > (the guest) even want to make it visible in that case?
>
> I think these ideas belong to what Alex Duyck wanted to do:
> some kind of advanced device that isn't tied to
> any network interfaces and allows workload and performance
> specific tuning.
>
> Way out of scope for a simple failover, and more importantly,
> no one is looking at even enumerating the problems involved,
> much less solving them.
So, for simplicity's sake, we need to rely on the host admin
configuring the vm for its guest's intended use case. Sounds fair, but
probably needs a note somewhere.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists