[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [virtio-comment] RE: [PATCH] content: reserve virtio device ID for QingTian Box devices
On Mon, Jan 03 2022, "Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.)" <longpeng2@huawei.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Cornelia Huck [mailto:cohuck@redhat.com] >> Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 7:30 PM >> To: Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.) >> <longpeng2@huawei.com>; Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> >> Cc: Gonglei (Arei) <arei.gonglei@huawei.com>; >> virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org >> Subject: Re: [virtio-comment] RE: [PATCH] content: reserve virtio device ID for >> QingTian Box devices >> >> On Mon, Dec 27 2021, "Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product >> Dept.)" <longpeng2@huawei.com> wrote: >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Michael S. Tsirkin [mailto:mst@redhat.com] >> >> Sent: Monday, December 27, 2021 4:15 PM >> >> To: Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.) >> >> <longpeng2@huawei.com> >> >> Cc: Gonglei (Arei) <arei.gonglei@huawei.com>; >> >> virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org >> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] content: reserve virtio device ID for QingTian Box devices >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 02:49:25PM +0000, Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure >> >> Service Product Dept.) wrote: >> >> > Hi Michael, >> >> > >> >> > Is there anything else I need to do to reserve the device id? >> >> >> >> OK, I see the issue was created. I think it makes sense to wait >> >> until Jan 3 with the vote since lots of people are on >> >> vacation. >> >> >> > >> > Ok, thanks. >> > >> >> Meanwhile - are there plans to add this device to the spec eventually? >> >> Can you share a bit more of what it does? >> >> >> > >> > We want to carve out some resources (e.g. vcpu, mem, pci_dev) from the user's >> > VM and then use these resources to start a sandbox for the user. The usage >> > quite likes the software enclave which Nitro already supported, but we have >> > much wider usage, for example, running unikernel + app (e.g. OSV + Redis) in >> > the sandbox, it would provide much better performance than the traditional >> > os. >> >> Sounds interesting. One question: Should this virtio device only support >> a specific hypervisor, or could it support various hypervisors in >> theory? (Via different commands or parameters.) In case of the latter, >> it might be better to reserve an ID for a "sandbox device" or so. If the >> design is too closely tied to your hypervisor, I'd be fine with >> reserving the ID as proposed. > > We want to name the device as "virtio sandbox" originally, but consider that it > would be much convenient to add new features (maybe tied to our hypervisor) in > the future if we introduce a private device, so we decide to use "QingTian Box" > at last. > > However, the sandbox function is not bound to a specific hypervisor, so it's free > for the other guys to add something like "virtio sandbox". Yes, I guess this is a tradeoff between "device for a closely defined environment that can be specified/changed easily" and "generic device covering different environments that gets very complex". I do not have a very good grasp of the problem space; if it is hard to make generic, I have no objection to the specific device id. Anyone else have a comment? If not, we can go ahead and start a vote.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]