i.e. it has all the makings of a stupid, avoidable, permanent fork. The thingNearly. There was no equivalent of a kernel based virtual driver host
before.
- Are a pure software concept and any compatibility mismatch isIn practice, especially considering older kernel releases, VMs
self-inflicted. The patches are in fact breaking the ABI to KVM
behave like hardware, with all its quirks, compatibility requirements,
sometimes not fully understood, etc.
It's a bit as if someone found a performance problem with sys_open() and cameAFAIK Gregory tried for several months to work with the KVM maintainers,
up with sys_open_v2() and claimed that he wants to work with the VFS
developers while not really doing so but advances sys_open_v2() all the time.
but failed at their NIH filter.
The main difference is that Gregory claims that improved performance is notYes clearly the onus at this point is on the vhost-net developers/
possible within the existing KVM framework, while the KVM developers disagree.
The good news is that this is a hard, testable fact.
"pci is all that is ever needed for PV" proponents to show similar numbers
with their current code.
If they can show the same performance there's really no need for
the alacrityvm model (or at least I haven't seen a convincing reason
other than performance so far to have a separate model)