[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <MWHPR11MB16456D49F2F2E9646F0841488C5F0@MWHPR11MB1645.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 02:12:44 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"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>,
"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
> From: Jason Gunthorpe
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 9:35 PM
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 07:32:24AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>
> > > I would prefer to see that the existing userspace interface have the
> > > extra needed bits for virtualization (eg by having appropriate
> > > internal kernel APIs to make this easy) and all the emulation to build
> > > the synthetic PCI device be done in userspace.
> >
> > In the end what decides the direction is the amount of changes that
> > we have to put in kernel, not whether we call it 'emulation'.
>
> No, this is not right. The decision should be based on what will end
> up more maintable in the long run.
>
> Yes it would be more code to dis-aggregate some of the things
> currently only bundled as uAPI inside VFIO (eg your vSVA argument
> above) but once it is disaggregated the maintability of the whole
> solution will be better overall, and more drivers will be able to use
> this functionality.
>
Disaggregation is an orthogonal topic to the main divergence in
this thread, which is passthrough vs. userspace DMA. I gave detail
explanation about the difference between the two in last reply.
the possibility of dis-aggregating something between passthrough
frameworks (e.g. VFIO and vDPA) is not the reason for growing
every userspace DMA framework to be a passthrough framework.
Doing that is instead hurting maintainability in general...
Thanks
Kevin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists