From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus model for vbus_drive Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:19:53 +0300 Message-ID: <4A8A9C69.6060900@redhat.com> References: <4A8A622E0200005A000528DC@sinclair.provo.novell.com> <4A8A62370200005A000528DF@sinclair.provo.novell.com> <4A8A62370200005A000528DF@sinclair.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: mst@redhat.com, mingo@elte.hu, gregory.haskins@gmail.com, alacrityvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Gregory Haskins Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:55359 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751358AbZHRMUB (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:20:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4A8A62370200005A000528DF@sinclair.provo.novell.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 08/18/2009 03:11 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote: > Sorry for the toppost. Still not at the office. > > I just wanted to add that we've already been through this disussion once. (Search "haskins hypercall lkml" on google and I'm sure you are bound to see hits. > > Your numbers showed a 350ns difference on fairly old (by now) hardware. I doubt the difference will exceed 200ns now. > The fact is: the original vbus was designed with hypercalls, and it drew much of these same critisims. In the end, hypercalls are only marginally faster than PIO (iirc, 450ns faster, and shrinking), so we decided that it was not worth further discussion at the time. > Has anything changed? > A better solution is probably PIOoHC, so that you retain the best properties of both. The only problem with the entire PIOx approach is that its x86 specific, but that is an entirely different thread. > pio is nicely abstracted by PCI. virtio-pci will use pio on x86 and mmio on non-x86. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function