[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 1/1] ceph/rbd block driver for qemu-kvm

From: Avi Kivity
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 1/1] ceph/rbd block driver for qemu-kvm
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 17:01:19 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100330 Fedora/3.0.4-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.4

On 05/25/2010 04:55 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 05/25/2010 08:38 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 05/25/2010 04:35 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 05/25/2010 08:31 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
A protocol based mechanism has the advantage of being more robust in the face of poorly written block backends so if it's possible to make it perform as well as a plugin, it's a preferable approach.

May be hard due to difficulty of exposing guest memory.

If someone did a series to add plugins, I would expect a very strong argument as to why a shared memory mechanism was not possible or at least plausible.

I'm not sure I understand why shared memory is such a bad thing wrt KVM. Can you elaborate? Is it simply a matter of fork()?

fork() doesn't work in the with of memory hotplug.  What else is there?

Is it that fork() doesn't work or is it that fork() is very expensive?

It doesn't work, fork() is done at block device creation time, which freezes the child memory map, while guest memory is allocated at hotplug time.

fork() actually isn't very expensive since we use MADV_DONTFORK (probably fast enough for everything except realtime).

It may be possible to do a processfd() which can be mmap()ed by another process to export anonymous memory using mmu notifiers, not sure how easy or mergeable that is.

error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]