From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] AlacrityVM guest drivers Reply-To: Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:50:59 +0300 Message-ID: <4A7AFBE3.5080200@redhat.com> References: <20090803171030.17268.26962.stgit@dev.haskins.net> <4A7AE150.7040009@redhat.com> <4A7AAB1A0200005A00051BED@sinclair.provo.novell.com> <200908061740.04276.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Gregory Haskins , alacrityvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Arnd Bergmann Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:47988 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755884AbZHFPpl (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:45:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200908061740.04276.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 08/06/2009 06:40 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > 3. The ioq method seems to be the real core of your work that makes > venet perform better than virtio-net with its virtqueues. I don't see > any reason to doubt that your claim is correct. My conclusion from > this would be to add support for ioq to virtio devices, alongside > virtqueues, but to leave out the extra bus_type and probing method. > The current conjecture is that ioq outperforms virtio because the host side of ioq is implemented in the host kernel, while the host side of virtio is implemented in userspace. AFAIK, no one pointed out differences in the protocol which explain the differences in performance. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function