[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
> -----Original Message----- > From: Michael S. Tsirkin [mailto:mst@redhat.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 1:15 AM > To: Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.) > <longpeng2@huawei.com> > Cc: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>; 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, Jan 03, 2022 at 11:55:09AM +0000, Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure > Service Product Dept.) 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". > > Hard to say of course but I'm guessing it's better to give it a generic If the device only support the sandbox function, then I think a generic name (e.g. virtio-sandbox) would be fine. But as I said above, we want to extend it as a "toolbox" in the near future, not only the sandbox. > name. Part of the appeal of virtio is it's hypervisor agnostic, > hypervisor specific extensions can always be moved to a separate device. > Yes, but we've already introduced a hypervisor specific device (NSM) now, why it's hard to reserve just one ID for other vendors? So I really hope the TC could give a chance for other vendors to do this, maybe you can limit the IDs that a vendor can reserved. Thanks. > -- > MST
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]