[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230614101951-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 10:20:44 -0400
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Mike Christie <michael.christie@...cle.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux@...mhuis.info,
nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, sgarzare@...hat.com,
jasowang@...hat.com, stefanha@...hat.com, brauner@...nel.org
Subject: Re: Can vhost translate to io_uring?
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 01:02:58AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> I am sad my idea for simplifying things did not work out.
>
>
> Let's try an even bigger idea to reduce maintenance and simplify things.
>
> Could vhost depend on io_uring?
>
> Could vhost just be a translation layer of existing vhost requests to
> io_uring requests?
I expect that's going to have a measureable performance impact.
> At a quick glance it looks like io_uring already supports the
> functionality that vhost supports (which I think is networking and
> scsi).
>
> If vhost could become a translation layer that would allow removing
> the vhost worker and PF_USER_WORKER could be removed completely,
> leaving only PF_IO_WORKER.
>
>
> I suggest this because a significant vhost change is needed because in
> the long term the hacks in exec and coredump are not a good idea. Which
> means something like my failed "[PATCH v3] fork, vhost: Use CLONE_THREAD
> to fix freezer/ps regression".
>
> If we have to go to all of the trouble of reworking things it why can't
> we just make io_uring do all of the work?
>
> Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists