lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus
    Anthony Liguori wrote:
    > Andi Kleen wrote:
    >> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:19:49AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
    >>
    >>>>>
    >>>> But surely you must have some specific use case in mind? Something
    >>>> that it does better than the various methods that are available
    >>>> today. Or rather there must be some problem you're trying
    >>>> to solve. I'm just not sure what that problem exactly is.
    >>>>
    >>> Performance. We are trying to create a high performance IO
    >>> infrastructure.
    >>>
    >>
    >> Ok. So the goal is to bypass user space qemu completely for better
    >> performance. Can you please put this into the initial patch
    >> description?
    >>
    >
    > FWIW, there's nothing that prevents in-kernel back ends with virtio so
    > vbus certainly isn't required for in-kernel backends.

    I think there is a slight disconnect here. This is *exactly* what I am
    trying to do. You can of course do this many ways, and I am not denying
    it could be done a different way than the path I have chosen. One
    extreme would be to just slam a virtio-net specific chunk of code
    directly into kvm on the host. Another extreme would be to build a
    generic framework into Linux for declaring arbitrary IO types,
    integrating it with kvm (as well as other environments such as lguest,
    userspace, etc), and building a virtio-net model on top of that.

    So in case it is not obvious at this point, I have gone with the latter
    approach. I wanted to make sure it wasn't kvm specific or something
    like pci specific so it had the broadest applicability to a range of
    environments. So that is why the design is the way it is. I understand
    that this approach is technically "harder/more-complex" than the "slam
    virtio-net into kvm" approach, but I've already done that work. All we
    need to do now is agree on the details ;)

    >
    >
    > That said, I don't think we're bound today by the fact that we're in
    > userspace.
    You will *always* be bound by the fact that you are in userspace. Its
    purely a question of "how much" and "does anyone care". Right now,
    the anwer is "a lot (roughly 45x slower)" and "at least Greg's customers
    do". I have no doubt that this can and will change/improve in the
    future. But it will always be true that no matter how much userspace
    improves, the kernel based solution will always be faster. Its simple
    physics. I'm cutting out the middleman to ultimately reach the same
    destination as the userspace path, so userspace can never be equal.

    I agree that the "does anyone care" part of the equation will approach
    zero as the latency difference shrinks across some threshold (probably
    the single microsecond range), but I will believe that is even possible
    when I see it ;)

    Regards,
    -Greg

    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-04-01 23:09    [W:2.287 / U:0.040 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site