On 6/14/23 12:25?AM, michael.christie@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On 6/14/23 1:02 AM, 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? >> >> 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 > > It would be nice if the vhost layer could use the io-wq code as sort of > generic worker. I can look into what that would take if Jens is ok > with that type of thing. Certainly. io-wq is mostly generic, eg it has no understanding of io_uring internals or commands and structs, and it should be possible to just setup a struct io_wq and use that. Obviously might need a bit of refactoring work and exporting of symbols, io_uring is y/n so we don't export anything. But I think it should all be minor work, really. -- Jens Axboe _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
