From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NUQZj-0007w3-Ld for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:09:19 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NUQZf-0007rl-RE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:09:19 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45091 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NUQZf-0007rZ-Ml for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:09:15 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:21789) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NUQZf-0000Qn-6l for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:09:15 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:09:10 +0000 From: "Daniel P. Berrange" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH-RFC 00/13] vhost-net: preview Message-ID: <20100111200910.GB10230@redhat.com> References: <20100111171641.GA11936@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100111171641.GA11936@redhat.com> Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 07:16:42PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > Here's an untested patchset with vhost support for upstream qemu. Note > that you should not expect performance gains from vhost unless in-kernel > irqchip is enabled (which is not in upstream qemu now). Since adding > vhost involves quite a bit of infrastructure, I thought it makes sense > to send an RFC already, so that interested parties can review it. In > particular, command line and help text need to be finalized early to so > that management can start looking on supporting the feature. This patch > has all bits besides migration filled in. Also missing is packet socket > backend: another team is now working on this. Can you clarify a question about migration for me. Is it possible to live migrate a guest configured with tap + bridge on one machine over to another where it is launched with vhost + bridge, and vice-versa. In other words does this vhost support have any guest visible impact that would cause migraiton compatability problems, or it is purely a host side optimization like vnet_hdr was ? Regards, Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|