From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Wright Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:40:39 -0700 Message-ID: <20090401204039.GR18394@sequoia.sous-sol.org> References: <20090331184057.28333.77287.stgit@dev.haskins.net> <87ab71monw.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <49D35825.3050001@novell.com> <20090401132340.GT11935@one.firstfloor.org> <49D37805.1060301@novell.com> <20090401170103.GU11935@one.firstfloor.org> <49D3B64F.6070703@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andi Kleen , Gregory Haskins , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, agraf@suse.de, pmullaney@novell.com, pmorreale@novell.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49D3B64F.6070703@codemonkey.ws> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org * Anthony Liguori (anthony@codemonkey.ws) wrote: > Andi Kleen wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:19:49AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote: >>> Performance. We are trying to create a high performance IO infrastructure. >> >> Ok. So the goal is to bypass user space qemu completely for better >> performance. Can you please put this into the initial patch >> description? > > FWIW, there's nothing that prevents in-kernel back ends with virtio so > vbus certainly isn't required for in-kernel backends. Indeed. > That said, I don't think we're bound today by the fact that we're in > userspace. Rather we're bound by the interfaces we have between the > host kernel and userspace to generate IO. I'd rather fix those > interfaces than put more stuff in the kernel. And more stuff in the kernel can come at the potential cost of weakening protection/isolation.