[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus
    On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 04:07:09PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
    > I think Rusty did mean a UP guest, and without schedule-and-forget.

    Going off on a tangent here, I don't really think it should matter
    whether we're UP or SMP. The ideal state is where we have the
    same number of (virtual) TX queues as there are cores in the guest.
    On the host side we need the backend to run at least on a core
    that shares cache with the corresponding guest queue/core. If
    that happens to be the same core as the guest core then it should
    work as well.

    IOW we should optimise it as if the host were UP.

    > The problem is that we already have virtio guest drivers going several
    > kernel versions back, as well as Windows drivers. We can't keep
    > changing the infrastructure under people's feet.

    Yes I agree that changing the guest-side driver is a no-no. However,
    we should be able to achieve what's shown here without modifying the

    Visit Openswan at
    Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <>
    Home Page:
    PGP Key:

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-04-02 17:03    [W:0.031 / U:14.340 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site