qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] vhost-user graceful connect/disconnect


From: Wei Wang
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] vhost-user graceful connect/disconnect
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 19:22:37 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0

On 01/05/2018 11:49 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 07:15:38PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
On 01/04/2018 06:47 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 06:01:29AM -0500, Marc-André Lureau wrote:

I'm not going to prototype this yet, I'm working on virtio-vhost-user
first, but eventually I might get back to -object vhost-user(-backend).

Hi Stefan, are you implementing the guest slave and vhost-pci driver (we've
posted to the dpdk mailinglist) as well? and do you have an estimation when
would the prototype be ready?
I'm implementing the "[RFC virtio-dev] vhost-user-slave: add vhost-user
slave device type" device in QEMU and DPDK in order to show how the
ideas we've discussed work.

Here is the VIRTIO spec link again:
https://stefanha.github.io/virtio/vhost-user-slave.html#x1-2830007

There are four virtqueues documented in the spec, would two suffice? Request and Response can be distinguished by VHOST_USER_REPLY_MASK.


It integrates into DPDK's librte_vhost so that existing vhost-user code
works over AF_UNIX and virtio-vhost-user without code duplication or
rewriting the devices.

I hope you'll like the code when it's done.  If not, it still has useful
code and ideas that would be needed to complete the vhost-pci RFC work
like extending the PCI transport in the VIRTIO spec, handling vhost-user
reconnection, etc.

I'm aiming to send an RFC in the next 2 weeks.


Thanks. There would be at least three Slave handlers I can imagine:
- QEMU Slave handler to send master requests/responses to the guest
- Guest Slave handler
- QEMU Slave handler to send Guest Requests/responses to the master
I'm curious to see the code how could one be implemented so that the other other two could reuse.

I think the key issue is that we have a different viewpoint of protocol gating and protocol relaying. It is a high-level direction we need to align first before we could get into more details. Hope your upcoming code can get us a decision. Please also remember to reuse the dpdk code that my coworker posted to the dpdk mailinglist wherever possible, it may save your time to debug.

Best,
Wei




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]