From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Subject: Re: vhost net: performance with ping benchmark
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:06:39 -0500
Message-ID: <4A93E1DF.5080004@codemonkey.ws>
References: <20090824081240.GA3415@redhat.com> <20090824212137.GA9835@redhat.com> <4A934AF7.2090904@codemonkey.ws> <4A936525.5030300@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
	Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-qy0-f173.google.com ([209.85.221.173]:35889 "EHLO
	mail-qy0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752397AbZHYNGk (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:06:40 -0400
Received: by qyk3 with SMTP id 3so591373qyk.4
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 06:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4A936525.5030300@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Avi Kivity wrote:
>> I think this is likely going to be needed regardless.  I also think 
>> the tap compatibility suggestion would simplify the consumption of 
>> this in userspace.
>
> What about veth pairs?

Does veth support GSO and checksum offload?

>> I'd like some time to look at get_state/set_state ioctl()s along with 
>> dirty tracking support.  It's a much better model for live migration 
>> IMHO.
>
> My preference is ring proxying.  Not we'll need ring proxying (or at 
> least event proxying) for non-MSI guests.

I avoided suggested ring proxying because I didn't want to suggest that 
merging should be contingent on it.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori