On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 12:35 PM Xuan Zhuo <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 11:56:52 +0800, Jason Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 10:42 AM Xuan Zhuo <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 16:17:31 +0800, Jason Wang <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Jason, > > > > > > I think there may be some problems with the direction we are discussing. > > > > Probably not. > > > > As far as we are focusing on technology, there's nothing wrong from my > > perspective. And this is how the community works. Your idea needs to > > be justified and people are free to raise any technical questions > > especially considering you've posted a spec change with prototype > > codes but not only the idea. > > > > > Our > > > goal is to add an new ism device. As far as the spec is concerned, we are > > > not > > > concerned with the implementation of the backend. > > > > > > The direction we should discuss is what is the difference between the ism > > > device > > > and other devices such as virtio-net, and whether it is necessary to > > > introduce > > > this new device. > > > > This is somehow what I want to ask, actually it's not a comparison > > with virtio-net but: > > > > - virtio-roce > > - virtio-vhost-user > > - virtio-(p)mem > > > > or whether we can simply add features to those devices to achieve what > > you want to do here. > > > > > How to share the backend with other deivce is another problem. > > > > Yes, anything that is used for your virito-ism prototype can be used > > for other devices. > > > > > > > > Our goal is to dynamically obtain a piece of memory to share with other > > > vms. > > > > So at this level, I don't see the exact difference compared to > > virtio-vhost-user. Let's just focus on the API that carries on the > > semantic: > > > > - map/unmap > > - permission update > > > > The only missing piece is the per region notification. > > > > I want to know how we can share a region based on vvu: > > |---------| |---------------| > | | | | > | ----- | | ------- | > | | ? | | | | vvu | | > |---------| |---------------| > | | > | | > |------------------| > > Can you describe this process in the vvu scenario you are considering? > > > The flow of ism we consider is as follows: > 1. SMC calls the interface ism_alloc_region() of the ism driver to return > the > location of a memory region in the PCI space and a token.
Can virtio-vhost-user be backed on the memory you've used for ISM? It's just a name of the command: VHOST_IOTLB_UPDATE(or other) vs VIRTIO_ISM_CTRL_ALLOC. Or we can consider the form another angle, can virtio-vhost-user be built on top of ISM? > 2. The ism driver mmap the memory region and return to SMC with the token This part should be the same as long as we add token to a specific region. > 3. SMC passes the token to the connected peer Should be the same. > 4. the peer calls the ism driver interface ism_attach_region(token) to > get the location of the PCI space of the shared memory Ditto. Thanks > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > In a connection, this memory will be used repeatedly. As far as SMC is > > > concerned, > > > it will use it as a ring. Of course, we also need a notify mechanism. > > > > > > That's what we're aiming for, so we should first discuss whether this > > > requirement is reasonable. > > > > So unless somebody said "no", it is fine until now. > > > > > I think it's a feature currently not supported by > > > other devices specified by the current virtio spce. > > > > Probably, but we've already had rfcs for roce and vhost-user. > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
