[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACGkMEtytpnCdWdmSh-BuFGXt55DJ9dYxnbw7JQwMXi9bQ8fvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 09:15:19 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@...hat.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"martinh@...inx.com" <martinh@...inx.com>,
Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>,
"martinpo@...inx.com" <martinpo@...inx.com>,
"lvivier@...hat.com" <lvivier@...hat.com>,
"pabloc@...inx.com" <pabloc@...inx.com>,
Eli Cohen <elic@...dia.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Xie Yongji <xieyongji@...edance.com>,
Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
Zhang Min <zhang.min9@....com.cn>,
Wu Zongyong <wuzongyong@...ux.alibaba.com>,
"lulu@...hat.com" <lulu@...hat.com>,
Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@...el.com>,
"Piotr.Uminski@...el.com" <Piotr.Uminski@...el.com>,
Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu@...cle.com>,
"ecree.xilinx@...il.com" <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>,
"gautam.dawar@....com" <gautam.dawar@....com>,
"habetsm.xilinx@...il.com" <habetsm.xilinx@...il.com>,
"tanuj.kamde@....com" <tanuj.kamde@....com>,
"hanand@...inx.com" <hanand@...inx.com>,
"dinang@...inx.com" <dinang@...inx.com>,
Longpeng <longpeng2@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Implement vdpasim stop operation
On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 3:36 AM Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com> wrote:
>
>
> > From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 9:29 PM
> >
> > Well, it's an example of how vDPA is implemented. I think we agree that for
> > vDPA, vendors have the flexibility to implement their perferrable datapath.
> >
> Yes for the vdpa level and for the virtio level.
>
> > >
> > > I remember few months back, you acked in the weekly meeting that TC has
> > approved the AQ direction.
> > > And we are still in this circle of debating the AQ.
> >
> > I think not. Just to make sure we are on the same page, the proposal here is
> > for vDPA, and hope it can provide forward compatibility to virtio. So in the
> > context of vDPA, admin virtqueue is not a must.
> In context of vdpa over virtio, an efficient transport interface is needed.
> If AQ is not much any other interface such as hundreds to thousands of registers is not must either.
>
> AQ is one interface proposed with multiple benefits.
> I haven’t seen any other alternatives that delivers all the benefits.
> Only one I have seen is synchronous config registers.
>
> If you let vendors progress, handful of sensible interfaces can exist, each with different characteristics.
> How would we proceed from here?
I'm pretty fine with having admin virtqueue in the virtio spec. If you
remember, I've even submitted a proposal to use admin virtqueue as a
transport last year.
Let's just proceed in the virtio-dev list.
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists