On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 03:23:02PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Alex Williamsonalex.william...@hp.com
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Michael S. Tsirkinm...@redhat.com wrote:
Did you assign ip address in host by any chance? You don't want that.
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 03:05:48 am Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 03:51:12PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Any rough idea on performance? Better or worse than userspace?
Well, I definitely see some gain in latency.
...
Part of it might be that tx mitigation does not come
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:23:46 am Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 13 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
The best way to do this IMO would be to add zero copy support to raw
sockets, vhost will then get it basically for free.
Yes, that would be nice. I wonder if that could lead to
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 01:55:32 am Anthony Liguori wrote:
Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
Also I still think passing a 'protocol' string for each port is a good
idea, so you can stick that into a sysfs file for guests use.
Or drops ports altogether and just use protocol strings...
Both is silly, yes.
On 08/20/09 09:31, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 01:55:32 am Anthony Liguori wrote:
Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
Also I still think passing a 'protocol' string for each port is a good
idea, so you can stick that into a sysfs file for guests use.
Or drops ports altogether and just use
On (Thu) Aug 20 2009 [09:44:29], Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
On 08/20/09 09:31, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 01:55:32 am Anthony Liguori wrote:
Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
Also I still think passing a 'protocol' string for each port is a good
idea, so you can stick that into a sysfs file for
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 05:27:07PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 19 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 03:46:44PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 19 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Leaving that aside for now, you could replace
On Thursday 20 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 05:27:07PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 19 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 03:46:44PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 19 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 03:10:54PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 20 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 05:27:07PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 19 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 03:46:44PM +0200, Arnd
On (Fri) Aug 14 2009 [08:29:28], Anthony Liguori wrote:
Amit Shah wrote:
On (Mon) Aug 10 2009 [11:59:31], Anthony Liguori wrote:
However, as I've mentioned repeatedly, the reason I won't merge
virtio-serial is that it duplicates functionality with
virtio-console. If the two are
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 04:49:47PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 03:05:48 am Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 03:51:12PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Any rough idea on performance? Better or worse than userspace?
Well, I definitely see some gain in
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 07:12:41PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
I've now seen some more code here and to me it looks like virtioconsole
is not used on any of the guests that qemu supports. The virtio_console
kernel module only works with lguest and s390 currently. There is one
feature and some
On Thursday 20 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 03:10:54PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 20 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
It doesn't matter that I don't want this: allowing 1 process corrupt
another's memory is a security issue. Once you get
On (Thu) Aug 20 2009 [15:25:09], Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 07:12:41PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
I've now seen some more code here and to me it looks like virtioconsole
is not used on any of the guests that qemu supports. The virtio_console
kernel module only works
On (Thu) Aug 20 2009 [20:08:02], Amit Shah wrote:
On (Thu) Aug 20 2009 [15:25:09], Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 07:12:41PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
I've now seen some more code here and to me it looks like virtioconsole
is not used on any of the guests that qemu
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 04:31:36PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 20 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 03:10:54PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 20 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
It doesn't matter that I don't want this: allowing 1
On Thursday 20 August 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
The errors from the socket (or chardev, as that was the
start of the argument) should still fit into the categories
that I mentioned, either they can be handled by the host
kernel, or they are fatal.
Hmm, are you sure? Imagine a
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 04:49:47PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 03:05:48 am Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 03:51:12PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Any rough idea on performance? Better or worse than userspace?
Well, I definitely see some gain in
Amit Shah wrote:
I think strings are better as numbers for identifying protocols as you
can work without a central registry for the numbers then.
I like the way assigned numbers work: it's simpler to code, needs a
bitmap for all the ports that fits in nicely in the config space and
udev
On 08/20/2009 08:00 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Surprisingly, I seem to get better-than-userspace throughput with this
benchmark as well. Here's a test run locally, host-to-guest,
over a veth link:
vhost:
[r...@qus19 ~]# ping -c 100 -f -q 11.0.0.4
PING 11.0.0.4 (11.0.0.4) 56(84)
Hi Michael,
Some random high-level comments:
- I had expected this to be available as:
-net raw,ifname=eth2 -net nic,model=virtio
I'd prefer it this way, because it means you can use this mode even
without vhost and it's ties in better with the way all other qemu
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 08:24:37PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 08/20/2009 08:00 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Surprisingly, I seem to get better-than-userspace throughput with this
benchmark as well. Here's a test run locally, host-to-guest,
over a veth link:
Bleh, I knew it's too good to
On Thursday 20 August 2009, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
- I had expected this to be available as:
-net raw,ifname=eth2 -net nic,model=virtio
I'd prefer it this way, because it means you can use this mode even
without vhost and it's ties in better with the way all other qemu
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 06:57:07PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hi Michael,
Some random high-level comments:
Note this code is posted very much just so that people can test vhost,
not really for merging, but thanks for review!
- I had expected this to be available as:
-net
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Michael S. Tsirkinm...@redhat.com wrote:
I think the duplicates are our best hint that something's wrong at this
point. Let's try to see where do they come from.
What is it exactly that you see?
# ping 10.100.100.74
PING 10.100.100.74 (10.100.100.74) 56(84)
25 matches
Mail list logo
