On 5/16/07, Anthony Liguori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What do you think about a socket interface? I'm not sure how discovery > would work yet, but there are a few PV socket implementations for Xen at > the moment. >
>From a functional standpoint I don't have a huge problem with it, particularly if its more of a pure socket and not something that tries to look like a TCP/IP endpoint -- I would prefer something closer to netlink. Sockets would allow the exisitng 9p stuff to pretty much work as-is. However, all that being said, I noticed some pretty big differences between sockets and shared memory in terms of overhead under Linux. If you take a look at the RPC latency graph in: http://plan9.escet.urjc.es/iwp9/cready/PROSE_iwp9_2006.pdf You'll see that a local socket implementation has about an order of magnitude worse latency than a PROSE/Libra inter-partition shared memory channel. Furthermore it will really limit our ability to trim the fat of unnecessary copies in order to have competitive performance. But perhaps there's magic you can do to eliminate that. Of course, you could always layer a socket interface for userspace simplicity on top of a more performance-optimized underlying transport that could be used directly by kernel-modules. -eric ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
