From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752504AbZHLNrD (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:47:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751376AbZHLNrD (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:47:03 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:54395 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751141AbZHLNrB (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:47:01 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 0/2] vhost: a kernel-level virtio server Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:40:44 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.0 (Linux/2.6.31-5-generic; KDE/4.3.0; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Gregory Haskins , netdev@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , hpa@zytor.com, Patrick Mullaney References: <20090811212743.GA26309@redhat.com> <200908121452.01802.arnd@arndb.de> <20090812130612.GC29200@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20090812130612.GC29200@redhat.com> X-Face: I@=L^?./?$U,EK.)V[4*>`zSqm0>65YtkOe>TFD'!aw?7OVv#~5xd\s,[~w]-J!)|%=]> =?utf-8?q?+=0A=09=7EohchhkRGW=3F=7C6=5FqTmkd=5Ft=3FLZC=23Q-=60=2E=60Y=2Ea=5E?= =?utf-8?q?3zb?=) =?utf-8?q?+U-JVN=5DWT=25cw=23=5BYo0=267C=26bL12wWGlZi=0A=09=7EJ=3B=5Cwg?= =?utf-8?q?=3B3zRnz?=,J"CT_)=\H'1/{?SR7GDu?WIopm.HaBG=QYj"NZD_[zrM\Gip^U MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200908121540.44928.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/JRs+BJXxMLF4iIxXFMCqv+JCuEraKs+MM5gW V4dh9t3j5KjGvR8ql+MUBOUE+6RHpUsNeYHVNb8JVu4VoDg6+X XlsDXiAlI04E4huJblNTw== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 12 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > If I understand it correctly, you can at least connect a veth pair > > to a bridge, right? Something like > > > > veth0 - veth1 - vhost - guest 1 > > eth0 - br0-| > > veth2 - veth3 - vhost - guest 2 > > > Heh, you don't need a bridge in this picture: > > guest 1 - vhost - veth0 - veth1 - vhost guest 2 Sure, but the setup I described is the one that I would expect to see in practice because it gives you external connectivity. Measuring two guests communicating over a veth pair is interesting for finding the bottlenecks, but of little practical relevance. Arnd <>< From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 0/2] vhost: a kernel-level virtio server Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:40:44 +0200 Message-ID: <200908121540.44928.arnd@arndb.de> References: <20090811212743.GA26309@redhat.com> <200908121452.01802.arnd@arndb.de> <20090812130612.GC29200@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Gregory Haskins , netdev@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , hpa@zytor.com, Patrick Mullaney To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090812130612.GC29200@redhat.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 12 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > If I understand it correctly, you can at least connect a veth pair > > to a bridge, right? Something like > > > > veth0 - veth1 - vhost - guest 1 > > eth0 - br0-| > > veth2 - veth3 - vhost - guest 2 > > > Heh, you don't need a bridge in this picture: > > guest 1 - vhost - veth0 - veth1 - vhost guest 2 Sure, but the setup I described is the one that I would expect to see in practice because it gives you external connectivity. Measuring two guests communicating over a veth pair is interesting for finding the bottlenecks, but of little practical relevance. Arnd <>< -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org