Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus model for vbus_driverobjects

[Anthony Liguori]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > I think the reason vbus gets better performance for networking 
> > today is that vbus' backends are in the kernel while virtio's 
> > backends are currently in userspace.  Since Michael has a 
> > functioning in-kernel backend for virtio-net now, I suspect we're 
> > weeks (maybe days) away from performance results.  My expectation 
> > is that vhost + virtio-net will be as good as venet + vbus.  If 
> > that's the case, then I don't see any reason to adopt vbus unless 
> > Greg things there are other compelling features over virtio.
> >     
>
> Keeping virtio's backend in user-space was rather stupid IMHO. 
>   

I don't think it's quite so clear.

There's nothing about vhost_net that would prevent a userspace 
application from using it as a higher performance replacement for tun/tap.

The fact that we can avoid userspace for most of the fast paths is nice 
but that's really an issue of vhost_net vs. tun/tap.

From the kernel's perspective, a KVM guest is just a userspace 
process.  Having new userspace interfaces that are only useful to KVM 
guests would be a bad thing.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/