From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] s390/kvm: In-kernel channel subsystem support. Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:57:26 +0300 Message-ID: <5059DD56.2000909@redhat.com> References: <1346771610-52423-1-git-send-email-cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> <1346771610-52423-8-git-send-email-cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> <48430489-B96F-4717-AA1E-B04445F55717@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <48430489-B96F-4717-AA1E-B04445F55717@suse.de> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Alexander Graf Cc: Cornelia Huck , KVM , linux-s390 , qemu-devel , Marcelo Tosatti , Anthony Liguori , Rusty Russell , Christian Borntraeger , Carsten Otte , Heiko Carstens , Martin Schwidefsky , Sebastian Ott List-ID: On 09/19/2012 05:47 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 04.09.2012, at 17:13, Cornelia Huck wrote: > >> Handle most support for channel I/O instructions in the kernel itself. >> >> Only asynchronous functions (such as the start function) need to be >> handled by userspace. > > Phew. This is a lot of code for something that is usually handled in user space in the kvm world. The x86 equivalent would be an in-kernel PCI bus, right? Have you measured major performance penalties when running this from user space? > > Avi, what do you think? I know nothing of this stuff. But your request for numbers is justified of course. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function