Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756081AbZLUPnl (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:43:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755913AbZLUPnk (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:43:40 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53125 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755889AbZLUPnj (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:43:39 -0500 Message-ID: <4B2F978D.7010602@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:43:09 +0200 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091209 Fedora/3.0-4.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gregory Haskins CC: Ingo Molnar , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, "alacrityvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] AlacrityVM guest drivers for 2.6.33 References: <4B1D4F29.8020309@gmail.com> <20091218215107.GA14946@elte.hu> <4B2F9582.5000002@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4B2F9582.5000002@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1789 Lines: 43 On 12/21/2009 05:34 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote: > >> I think it would be fair to point out that these patches have been objected to >> by the KVM folks quite extensively, >> > Actually, these patches have nothing to do with the KVM folks. You are > perhaps confusing this with the hypervisor-side discussion, of which > there is indeed much disagreement. > This is true, though these drivers are fairly pointless for virtualization without the host side support. I did have a few issues with the guest drivers: - the duplication of effort wrt virtio. These drivers don't cover exactly the same problem space, but nearly so. - no effort at scalability - all interrupts are taken on one cpu - the patches introduce a new virtual interrupt controller for dubious (IMO) benefits > From my research, the reason why virt in general, and KVM in particular > suffers on the IO performance front is as follows: IOs > (traps+interrupts) are more expensive than bare-metal, and real hardware > is naturally concurrent (your hbas and nics are effectively parallel > execution engines, etc). > > Assuming my observations are correct, in order to squeeze maximum > performance from a given guest, you need to do three things: A) > eliminate as many IOs as you possibly can, B) reduce the cost of the > ones you can't avoid, and C) run your algorithms in parallel to emulate > concurrent silicon. > All these are addressed by vhost-net without introducing new drivers. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/