From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hollis Blanchard Subject: direct IO access? Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:38:56 -0500 Message-ID: <1185475136.9451.48.camel@basalt> Reply-To: Hollis Blanchard Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: kvm-devel Return-path: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Hi, I've been having some discussions about embedded hypervisors, and one of the issues that has come up is latency for device access. This is particularly a problem for real-time applications... I've collected some thoughts at http://kvm.qumranet.com/kvmwiki/DirectIo (please correct it if I've misstated anything). I think we should flesh out some of the pros/cons of the possible solutions at the bottom. For starters, have the virtual IO ideas proposed so far considered applications that are about control, not data? For example, I'm thinking about control of a giant laser: is that block, or net? :) -- Hollis Blanchard IBM Linux Technology Center ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/