Re: [PATCHv5 3/3] vhost_net: a kernel-level virtio server

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 09/15/2009 04:50 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>> Why?  vhost will call get_user_pages() or copy_*_user() which ought to
>> do the right thing.
>>      
> I was speaking generally, not specifically to Ira's architecture.  What
> I mean is that vbus was designed to work without assuming that the
> memory is pageable.  There are environments in which the host is not
> capable of mapping hvas/*page, but the memctx->copy_to/copy_from
> paradigm could still work (think rdma, for instance).
>    

Sure, vbus is more flexible here.

>>> As an aside: a bigger issue is that, iiuc, Ira wants more than a single
>>> ethernet channel in his design (multiple ethernets, consoles, etc).  A
>>> vhost solution in this environment is incomplete.
>>>
>>>        
>> Why?  Instantiate as many vhost-nets as needed.
>>      
> a) what about non-ethernets?
>    

There's virtio-console, virtio-blk etc.  None of these have kernel-mode 
servers, but these could be implemented if/when needed.

> b) what do you suppose this protocol to aggregate the connections would
> look like? (hint: this is what a vbus-connector does).
>    

You mean multilink?  You expose the device as a multiqueue.

> c) how do you manage the configuration, especially on a per-board basis?
>    

pci (for kvm/x86).

> Actually I have patches queued to allow vbus to be managed via ioctls as
> well, per your feedback (and it solves the permissions/lifetime
> critisims in alacrityvm-v0.1).
>    

That will make qemu integration easier.

>>   The only difference is the implementation.  vhost-net
>> leaves much more to userspace, that's the main difference.
>>      
> Also,
>
> *) vhost is virtio-net specific, whereas vbus is a more generic device
> model where thing like virtio-net or venet ride on top.
>    

I think vhost-net is separated into vhost and vhost-net.

> *) vhost is only designed to work with environments that look very
> similar to a KVM guest (slot/hva translatable).  vbus can bridge various
> environments by abstracting the key components (such as memory access).
>    

Yes.  virtio is really virtualization oriented.

> *) vhost requires an active userspace management daemon, whereas vbus
> can be driven by transient components, like scripts (ala udev)
>    

vhost by design leaves configuration and handshaking to userspace.  I 
see it as an advantage.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function