Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH RFC 1/3] virtio infrastructure

2007-06-04 Thread Herbert Xu
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 02:25:32PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > > OT: Does that hold for bonded interfaces too? Yes. By default traffic to the same destination MAC always stick to one interface. You could select a layer3+4 hashing policy but even that guarantees a single flow will stick to one ph

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH RFC 1/3] virtio infrastructure

2007-06-04 Thread Rusty Russell
On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 14:25 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > Rusty Russell wrote: > > > >> Networking hardware generally services descriptors in a FIFO manner. > >> > > > > Well, ethernet guarantees order. Not sure about others tho... > > OT: Does that hold for bonded interfaces too? Sorry, I

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH RFC 1/3] virtio infrastructure

2007-06-04 Thread Avi Kivity
Rusty Russell wrote: Networking hardware generally services descriptors in a FIFO manner. Well, ethernet guarantees order. Not sure about others tho... OT: Does that hold for bonded interfaces too? virtio may not (for example, it may offload copies of larger packets to a dma en

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH RFC 1/3] virtio infrastructure

2007-06-04 Thread Rusty Russell
On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 12:55 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > Rusty Russell wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 14:39 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > >> Rusty Russell wrote: > >> > >>> Hmm... Perhaps I should move the used arrays into the "struct > >>> virtio_device" and guarantee that the id (returne

Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH RFC 1/3] virtio infrastructure

2007-06-04 Thread Herbert Xu
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 12:55:25PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > > Networking hardware generally services descriptors in a FIFO manner. > virtio may not (for example, it may offload copies of larger packets to > a dma engine such as I/OAT, resulting in a delay, but copy smaller > packets immediat

Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH RFC 1/3] virtio infrastructure

2007-06-04 Thread Avi Kivity
Rusty Russell wrote: On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 14:39 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: Rusty Russell wrote: Hmm... Perhaps I should move the used arrays into the "struct virtio_device" and guarantee that the id (returned by add_*buf) is an index into that. Then we can trivially add a corresponding

Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH RFC 1/3] virtio infrastructure

2007-06-03 Thread Rusty Russell
On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 14:39 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > Rusty Russell wrote: > > Hmm... Perhaps I should move the used arrays into the "struct > > virtio_device" and guarantee that the id (returned by add_*buf) is an > > index into that. Then we can trivially add a corresponding bit array. > > Th

Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH RFC 1/3] virtio infrastructure

2007-06-03 Thread Avi Kivity
Rusty Russell wrote: Hmm... Perhaps I should move the used arrays into the "struct virtio_device" and guarantee that the id (returned by add_*buf) is an index into that. Then we can trivially add a corresponding bit array. That may force the virtio backend to do things it doesn't want to.

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH RFC 1/3] virtio infrastructure

2007-06-03 Thread Rusty Russell
On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 08:28 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > Sure, 'used' is important (how else do you get the packet size on > receive?) Well, the sender can prepend the length, or for networking just leave Linux to trim packets. It's the trust issue which bugs me. > , I'm just bitching about the l

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH RFC 1/3] virtio infrastructure

2007-06-02 Thread Avi Kivity
Rusty Russell wrote: > On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 09:30 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> Rusty Russell wrote: >> >>> + * virtio_ops - virtio abstraction layer >>> + * @add_outbuf: prepare to send data to the other end: >>> + * vdev: the virtio_device >>> + * sg: the description of the buffer(s). >>

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH RFC 1/3] virtio infrastructure

2007-06-02 Thread Rusty Russell
On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 09:30 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > Rusty Russell wrote: > > + * virtio_ops - virtio abstraction layer > > + * @add_outbuf: prepare to send data to the other end: > > + * vdev: the virtio_device > > + * sg: the description of the buffer(s). > > + * num: the size of the sg array.

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH RFC 1/3] virtio infrastructure

2007-06-01 Thread Avi Kivity
Rusty Russell wrote: > This attempts to implement a "virtual I/O" layer which should allow > common drivers to be efficiently used across most virtual I/O > mechanisms. It will no-doubt need further enhancement. > > The details of probing the device are left to hypervisor-specific > code: it simpl

RE: [kvm-devel] [PATCH RFC 1/3] virtio infrastructure

2007-05-31 Thread Dor Laor
>This attempts to implement a "virtual I/O" layer which should allow >common drivers to be efficiently used across most virtual I/O >mechanisms. It will no-doubt need further enhancement. > >The details of probing the device are left to hypervisor-specific >code: it simple constructs the "struct v

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH RFC 1/3] virtio infrastructure

2007-05-31 Thread Carsten Otte
Rusty Russell wrote: This attempts to implement a "virtual I/O" layer which should allow common drivers to be efficiently used across most virtual I/O mechanisms. It will no-doubt need further enhancement. The details of probing the device are left to hypervisor-specific code: it simple constru