On Fri, 2025-01-17 at 10:13 +0800, Dust Li wrote: > > ---8<--- > > Here are some of my thoughts on the matter: > > > > > > > > Naming and Structure: I suggest we refer to it as SHD (Shared Memory > > > > Device) instead of ISM (Internal Shared Memory). > > > > > > So where does the 'H' come from? If you want to call it Shared Memory _D_evice? > > Oh, I was trying to refer to SHM(Share memory file in the userspace, see man > shm_open(3)). SMD is also OK. > > > > > > > To my knowledge, a > > > > "Shared Memory Device" better encapsulates the functionality we're > > > > aiming to implement. > > > > > > Could you explain why that would be better? > > 'Internal Shared Memory' is supposed to be a bit of a counterpart to the > > Remote 'R' in RoCE. Not the greatest name, but it is used already by our ISM > > devices and by ism_loopback. So what is the benefit in changing it? > > I believe that if we are going to separate and refine the code, and add > a common subsystem, we should choose the most appropriate name. > > In my opinion, "ISM" doesn’t quite capture what the device provides. > Since we’re adding a "Device" that enables different entities (such as > processes or VMs) to perform shared memory communication, I think a more > fitting name would be better. If you have any alternative suggestions, > I’m open to them. I kept thinking about this a bit and I'd like to propose yet another name for this group of devices: Memory Communication Devices (MCD) One important point I see is that there is a bit of a misnomer in the existing ISM name in that our ISM device does in fact *not* share memory in the common sense of the "shared memory" wording. Instead it copies data between partitions of memory that share a common cache/memory hierarchy while not sharing the memory itself. loopback- ism and a possibly future virtio-ism on the other hand would share memory in the "shared memory" sense. Though I'd very much hope they will retain a copy mode to allow use in partition scenarios. With that background I think the common denominator between them and the main idea behind ISM is that they facilitate communication via memory buffers and very simple and reliable copy/share operations. I think this would also capture our planned use-case of devices (TTYs, block devices, framebuffers + HID etc) provided by a peer on top of such a memory communication device. Thanks, Niklas
