similar to: rfc: vhost user enhancements for vm2vm communication

Hi Michael, Looks like the discussions tapered off, but do you have a plan to implement this if people are eventually fine with it? We want to extend this to support multiple VMs. On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Nakajima, Jun <jun.nakajima at intel.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: >> Hello! >> During the KVM

Hi Michael, Looks like the discussions tapered off, but do you have a plan to implement this if people are eventually fine with it? We want to extend this to support multiple VMs. On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Nakajima, Jun <jun.nakajima at intel.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: >> Hello! >> During the KVM

Hi Michael, When you talk about VFIO in guest, is it with a purely emulated IOMMU in Qemu? Also, I am not clear on the following points: 1. How transient memory would be mapped using BAR in the backend VM 2. How would the backend VM update the dirty page bitmap for the frontend VM Regards Varun > -----Original Message----- > From: qemu-devel-bounces+varun.sethi=freescale.com at nongnu.org

Hi Michael, When you talk about VFIO in guest, is it with a purely emulated IOMMU in Qemu? Also, I am not clear on the following points: 1. How transient memory would be mapped using BAR in the backend VM 2. How would the backend VM update the dirty page bitmap for the frontend VM Regards Varun > -----Original Message----- > From: qemu-devel-bounces+varun.sethi=freescale.com at nongnu.org

On 2015-08-31 16:11, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > Hello! > During the KVM forum, we discussed supporting virtio on top > of ivshmem. No, not on top of ivshmem. On top of shared memory. Our model is different from the simplistic ivshmem. > I have considered it, and came up with an alternative > that has several advantages over that - please see below. > Comments welcome. >

On 2015-08-31 16:11, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > Hello! > During the KVM forum, we discussed supporting virtio on top > of ivshmem. No, not on top of ivshmem. On top of shared memory. Our model is different from the simplistic ivshmem. > I have considered it, and came up with an alternative > that has several advantages over that - please see below. > Comments welcome. >

On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 09:35:21AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2015-08-31 16:11, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > Hello! > > During the KVM forum, we discussed supporting virtio on top > > of ivshmem. > > No, not on top of ivshmem. On top of shared memory. Our model is > different from the simplistic ivshmem. > > > I have considered it, and came up with an

On 09.09.2015 09:06, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 02:38:34PM +0200, Claudio Fontana wrote: >> Coming late to the party, >> >> On 31.08.2015 16:11, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> Hello! >>> During the KVM forum, we discussed supporting virtio on top >>> of ivshmem. I have considered it, and came up with an alternative

On 09.09.2015 09:06, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 02:38:34PM +0200, Claudio Fontana wrote: >> Coming late to the party, >> >> On 31.08.2015 16:11, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> Hello! >>> During the KVM forum, we discussed supporting virtio on top >>> of ivshmem. I have considered it, and came up with an alternative

On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 02:38:34PM +0200, Claudio Fontana wrote: > Coming late to the party, > > On 31.08.2015 16:11, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > Hello! > > During the KVM forum, we discussed supporting virtio on top > > of ivshmem. I have considered it, and came up with an alternative > > that has several advantages over that - please see below. > >

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 05:39:07PM +0200, Claudio Fontana wrote: > On 09.09.2015 09:06, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 02:38:34PM +0200, Claudio Fontana wrote: > >> Coming late to the party, > >> > >> On 31.08.2015 16:11, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>> Hello! > >>> During the KVM forum, we discussed supporting

Coming late to the party, On 31.08.2015 16:11, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > Hello! > During the KVM forum, we discussed supporting virtio on top > of ivshmem. I have considered it, and came up with an alternative > that has several advantages over that - please see below. > Comments welcome. as Jan mentioned we actually discussed a virtio-shmem device which would incorporate the

Coming late to the party, On 31.08.2015 16:11, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > Hello! > During the KVM forum, we discussed supporting virtio on top > of ivshmem. I have considered it, and came up with an alternative > that has several advantages over that - please see below. > Comments welcome. as Jan mentioned we actually discussed a virtio-shmem device which would incorporate the

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 05:11:02PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > The resulting channel might look something like the following: > > +-- VM1 --------------+ +---VM2-----------+ > | virtio-pci -- iommu +--+ vhost-pci -- VF | -- VFIO -- IOMMU -- NIC > +---------------------+ +-----------------+ > > comparing the two diagrams, a vhost-user thread on the host is > no

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 05:11:02PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > The resulting channel might look something like the following: > > +-- VM1 --------------+ +---VM2-----------+ > | virtio-pci -- iommu +--+ vhost-pci -- VF | -- VFIO -- IOMMU -- NIC > +---------------------+ +-----------------+ > > comparing the two diagrams, a vhost-user thread on the host is > no

On 2015-09-03 10:08, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 06:28:28PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> On 2015-09-01 18:02, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 05:34:37PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> On 2015-09-01 16:34, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 04:09:44PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:

On 2015-09-03 10:08, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 06:28:28PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> On 2015-09-01 18:02, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 05:34:37PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> On 2015-09-01 16:34, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 04:09:44PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:

On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 04:09:44PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2015-09-01 11:24, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 11:11:52AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> On 2015-09-01 10:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 09:35:21AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >>>> Leaving all the implementation and interface details

On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 05:34:37PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2015-09-01 16:34, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 04:09:44PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> On 2015-09-01 11:24, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 11:11:52AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >>>> On 2015-09-01 10:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >

On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 06:28:28PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2015-09-01 18:02, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 05:34:37PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> On 2015-09-01 16:34, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 04:09:44PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >>>> On 2015-09-01 11:24, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >