[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus
Herbert Xu wrote:
> Avi Kivity <> wrote:
>> virtio is already non-kvm-specific (lguest uses it) and non-pci-specific
>> (s390 uses it).
> I think Greg's work shows that putting the backend in the kernel
> can dramatically reduce the cost of a single guest->host transaction.
> I'm sure the same thing would work for virtio too.

Virtio suffers because we've had no notification of when a packet is
actually submitted. With the notification, the only difference should
be in the cost of a kernel->user switch, which is nowhere nearly as

>> If you have a good exit mitigation scheme you can cut exits by a factor
>> of 100; so the userspace exit costs are cut by the same factor. If you
>> have good copyless networking APIs you can cut the cost of copies to
>> zero (well, to the cost of get_user_pages_fast(), but a kernel solution
>> needs that too).
> Given the choice of having to mitigate or not having the problem
> in the first place, guess what I would prefer :)

There is no choice. Exiting from the guest to the kernel to userspace
is prohibitively expensive, you can't do that on every packet.

error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-02 11:07    [W:0.126 / U:0.152 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site