From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Sender: List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Received: from lists.oasis-open.org (oasis-open.org [10.110.1.242]) by lists.oasis-open.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA4A59865B7 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2023 16:07:16 +0000 (UTC) From: Cornelia Huck In-Reply-To: <20230112164132.09d292e5.pasic@linux.ibm.com> References: <20221223081354.15026-1-xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com> <20221223081354.15026-2-xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com> <20230110233401.131cc97a.pasic@linux.ibm.com> <1673435333.1297436-1-xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com> <20230111161128.48e6d7e0.pasic@linux.ibm.com> <20230112014722-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <87zgaocffm.fsf@redhat.com> <1673524110.7417235-2-xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com> <87r0vzddul.fsf@redhat.com> <20230112164132.09d292e5.pasic@linux.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 17:07:09 +0100 Message-ID: <87lem7d9ea.fsf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] [PATCH v2 1/1] virtio-ism: introduce new device virtio-ism Content-Type: text/plain To: Halil Pasic Cc: Xuan Zhuo , virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, hans@linux.alibaba.com, herongguang@linux.alibaba.com, zmlcc@linux.alibaba.com, dust.li@linux.alibaba.com, tonylu@linux.alibaba.com, zhenzao@linux.alibaba.com, helinguo@linux.alibaba.com, gerry@linux.alibaba.com, Jan Kiszka , wintera@linux.ibm.com, kgraul@linux.ibm.com, wenjia@linux.ibm.com, jaka@linux.ibm.com, hca@linux.ibm.com, twinkler@linux.ibm.com, raspl@linux.ibm.com, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Jason Wang , Halil Pasic List-ID: On Thu, Jan 12 2023, Halil Pasic wrote: > On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 15:30:58 +0100 > Cornelia Huck wrote: > >> >> >> >> I like that: we don't want to talk about hosts/VMMs/etc. as we >> >> fundamentally deal with devices and drivers, but sharing between guests >> >> is of course the obvious use case. >> >> >> >> I'm just wondering how best to express the uniqueness scope, is it per >> >> (ISM) device? >> > >> > No, each vm has at least one separate device. The devices in a host form >> > an uniqueness scope. >> >> Should we call it a 'group', then? A host would be an example of such a >> group. > > How about 'communication domain'? Devices within a single communication > domain may be able to speak to each other via SMC and may not have the > same device_id. Two devices from different communication domains can't > communicate via ISM, but may have the same device_id. > > I don't like group because it is very generic, and may sound like > the grouping can be done arbitrarily. E.g. with a shared memory based > implementation akin to the PoC putting devices on different hosts into > the same 'group' should be illegal. Yes, 'communication domain' sounds better. > > On the other hand there is also the following question. If we move away > form the one ID per host model ("The device MUST ensure that the gid on > the same entity i same and different from the gid on other entity.") then > we could also allow having more than one communication domains on a > single host (to limit what entities can use ISM to communicate). Makes sense, I guess. But I haven't looked too much into the details of ism yet. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org