[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87mt12oa25.fsf_-_@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 01:02:58 -0500
From: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
To: Mike Christie <michael.christie@...cle.com>
Cc: 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, mst@...hat.com,
sgarzare@...hat.com, jasowang@...hat.com, stefanha@...hat.com,
brauner@...nel.org
Subject: Can vhost translate to io_uring?
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?
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