From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: vhost net: performance with ping benchmark Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:57:34 +0300 Message-ID: <4A9409EE.3030906@redhat.com> References: <20090824081240.GA3415@redhat.com> <20090824212137.GA9835@redhat.com> <4A934AF7.2090904@codemonkey.ws> <4A936525.5030300@redhat.com> <20090825064604.GB10429@redhat.com> <4A93E235.5040008@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Rusty Russell , Mark McLoughlin To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40612 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753860AbZHYP6C (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:58:02 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4A93E235.5040008@codemonkey.ws> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 08/25/2009 04:08 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> My preference is ring proxying. Not we'll need ring proxying (or >>> at least event proxying) for non-MSI guests. >> >> Exactly, that's what I meant earlier. That's enough, isn't it, Anthony? > > It is if we have a working implementation that demonstrates the > userspace interface is sufficient. Once it goes into the upstream > kernel, we need to have backwards compatibility code in QEMU forever > to support that kernel version. Not at all. We still have pure userspace support, so if we don't like the first two versions of vhost, we can simply not support them. Of course I'm not advocating merging something known bad or untested, just pointing out that the cost of an error is not that bad. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function