> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 12:45 AM > > > Link to previous discussions with Jason: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/57296ad1-20fe-caf2-b83f- > 46d823ca0b5f@xxxxxxxxx/ > > The emulation part that can be moved to user space is very small due to > the majority of the > > emulations being control bits and need to reside in the kernel. We can > revisit the necessity of > > moving the small emulation part to userspace and required architectural > changes at a later time. > > The point here is that you already have a user space interface for > these queues that already has kernel support to twiddle the control > bits. Generally I'd expect extending that existing kernel code to do > the small bit more needed for mapping the queue through to PCI > emulation to be smaller than the 2kloc of new code here to put all the > emulation and support framework in the kernel, and exposes a lower > attack surface of kernel code to the guest. > We discussed in v1 about why extending user space interface is not a strong motivation at current stage: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200513124016.GG19158@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ In a nutshell, applications don't require raw WQ controllability as guest kernel drivers may expect. Extending DSA user space interface to be another passthrough interface just for virtualization needs is less compelling than leveraging established VFIO/mdev framework (with the major merit that existing user space VMMs just work w/o any change as long as they already support VFIO uAPI). And in this version we split previous 2kloc mdev patch into three parts: [09] mdev framework and callbacks; [10] mmio/pci_cfg emulation; and [11] handling of control commands. Only patch[10] is purely about emulation (~500LOC), while the other two parts are tightly coupled to physical resource management. In last review you said that you didn't hard nak this approach and would like to hear opinion from virtualization guys. In this version we CCed KVM mailing list, Paolo (VFIO/Qemu), Alex (VFIO), Samuel (Rust-VMM/Cloud hypervisor), etc. Let's see how they feel about this approach. Thanks Kevin
