Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Add VFIO mediated device support and IMS support for the idxd driver.

[Dave Jiang]

On 5/8/2020 4:16 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 01:47:10PM -0700, Raj, Ashok wrote:
>
> > Even when uaccel was under development, one of the options
> > was to use VFIO as the transport, goal was the same i.e to keep
> > the user space have one interface.
>
> I feel a bit out of the loop here, uaccel isn't in today's kernel is
> it? I've heard about it for a while, it sounds very similar to RDMA,
> so I hope they took some of my advice...

It went into 5.7 kernel. drivers/misc/uacce. It looks char device exported with 
SVM support.

> > But the needs of generic user space application is significantly
> > different from exporting a more functional device model to guest,
> > which isn't full emulated device. which is why VFIO didn't make
> > sense for native use.
>
> I'm not sure this is true. We've done these kinds of emulated SIOV
> like things already and there is a huge overlap between what a generic
> user application needs and what the VMM neds. Actually almost a
> perfect subset except for interrupt remapping (which is quite
> trivial).
>
> The things vfio focuses on, like groups and managing a real config
> space just don't apply here.
>
> > And when we move things from VFIO which is already established
> > as a general device model and accepted by multiple VMM's it gives
> > instant footing without a whole redesign.
>
> Yes, I understand, but I think you need to get more people to support
> this idea. From my standpoint this is taking secure lean VMMs and
> putting emulation code back into them, except in a more dangerous
> kernel location. This does not seem like a net win to me.
>
> You'd be much better to have some userspace library scheme instead of
> being completely tied to a kernel interface for modularity.
>
> > When we move things from VFIO to uaccel to bolt on the functionality
> > like VFIO, I suspect we would be moving code/functionality from VFIO
> > to Uaccel. I don't know what the net gain would be.
>
> Most of VFIO functionality is already decomposed inside the kernel,
> and you need most of it to do secure user access anyhow.
>
> > For mdev, would you agree we can keep the current architecture,
> > and investigate moving some emulation code to user space (say even for
> > standard vfio_pci) and then expand scope later.
>
> I won't hard NAK this, but I think you need more people to support
> this general idea of more emulation code in the kernel to go ahead -
> particularly since this is one of many future drivers along this
> design.
>
> It would be good to hear from the VMM teams that this is what they
> want (and why), for instance.
>
> Jason