From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 References: <20190704104650.GF1609@stefanha-x1.localdomain> <5D1ED564.6040705@huawei.com> <20190705080401.GC10995@stefanha-x1.localdomain> From: piaojun Message-ID: <5D1F08B6.8000900@huawei.com> Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 16:22:14 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190705080401.GC10995@stefanha-x1.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Virtio-fs] Achieving parallelism in virtiofsd List-Id: Development discussions about virtio-fs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: virtio-fs@redhat.com On 2019/7/5 16:04, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 12:43:16PM +0800, piaojun wrote: >> From your description, virtiofsd does the same work as SPDK, and I >> wonder if we could adapt it to SPDK-vhost-fs which is widely used. > > I don't see 9P code in spdk.git/master. How does the guest access > SPDK's vhost-fs device and where is the code? Yes, 9P code is not in spdk yet, and they can comunicate though share memory. But it needs some extra work. > > A quick look at blobfs suggests additional work is needed to introduce > the concept of inodes instead of performing path name traversal on most > operations. This also changes the semantics of the file system since > POSIX files can still be accessed after they are unlinked or renamed. > > In theory SPDK can implement the vhost-user-fs device interface and > replace virtiofsd but SPDK needs a POSIX file system implementation > first. Right, SPDK could only support blobfs now, and I wish it supporting any local file system as backend in the future. SPDK vhost-fs patches is in developing as below: https://review.gerrithub.io/c/spdk/spdk/+/449163/5 https://review.gerrithub.io/c/spdk/spdk/+/449162/5 Thanks, Jun > > Stefan >