[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200724001930.GS2021248@mellanox.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 21:19:30 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
Cc: "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
"vkoul@...nel.org" <vkoul@...nel.org>,
"Dey, Megha" <megha.dey@...el.com>,
"maz@...nel.org" <maz@...nel.org>,
"bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, "Lu, Baolu" <baolu.lu@...el.com>,
"Kumar, Sanjay K" <sanjay.k.kumar@...el.com>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Lin, Jing" <jing.lin@...el.com>,
"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"kwankhede@...dia.com" <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
"eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
"parav@...lanox.com" <parav@...lanox.com>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"netanelg@...lanox.com" <netanelg@...lanox.com>,
"shahafs@...lanox.com" <shahafs@...lanox.com>,
"yan.y.zhao@...ux.intel.com" <yan.y.zhao@...ux.intel.com>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"Ortiz, Samuel" <samuel.ortiz@...el.com>,
"Hossain, Mona" <mona.hossain@...el.com>,
"dmaengine@...r.kernel.org" <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 00/18] Add VFIO mediated device support and
DEV-MSI support for the idxd driver
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:54:49PM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> In a nutshell, applications don't require raw WQ controllability as guest
> kernel drivers may expect. Extending DSA user space interface to be another
> passthrough interface just for virtualization needs is less compelling than
> leveraging established VFIO/mdev framework (with the major merit that
> existing user space VMMs just work w/o any change as long as they already
> support VFIO uAPI).
Sure, but the above is how the cover letter should have summarized
that discussion, not as "it is not much code difference"
> In last review you said that you didn't hard nak this approach and would
> like to hear opinion from virtualization guys. In this version we CCed KVM
> mailing list, Paolo (VFIO/Qemu), Alex (VFIO), Samuel (Rust-VMM/Cloud
> hypervisor), etc. Let's see how they feel about this approach.
Yes, the VFIO community should decide.
If we are doing emulation tasks in the kernel now, then I can think of
several nice semi-emulated mdevs to propose.
This will not be some one off, but the start of a widely copied
pattern.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists