From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5258618D622; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:05:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.158.5 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738080309; cv=none; b=dBMfjxDBTPYh5qniNy6fdbuXrV3uib782YEmRgM/DYeITL1KI4v0FJZobNTciCMZlsLVxtWIGphJOj6H69C0ZtLbx+s7B/tQPiPBZvaNgDOWSTzZ4MjtnPN0Vv5Yk7Sq0T6uBAo4GTkNc8Sf3Il7t3sbKWDtv0Quj8niuFDOZJg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738080309; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Pkf6b56AWdm/rGhyG4QDIjkpCV/4hxlTfFzR8zuGX9c=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=lRKCyCTAuENJ3u54WzFkbpo+98ohVlAo6tTrXcwC5caFVLlbrs/0oexESQAyrgaz/6WQNnrBoyzt68f8Bj7mjXaMi+GWteP8wgzlfSAEyvfzaOf44FzKIU+x7YkpgUEGfImrzTyvMOOcSiH5H63TNpa4AxkI6lAz2j+WbU5ubU8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b=liA9sLH9; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.158.5 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="liA9sLH9" Received: from pps.filterd (m0356516.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 50SFdqRT003227; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:04:59 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to; s=pp1; bh=IzNjcV hjrKQMxejQLyCn2KV8aNzS5ZHGiuH6TrHYIjQ=; b=liA9sLH9lVvdxPt6hyKTqZ v4UVkEszwAmzSX+8rR+7sEkEiAp2AYeok4UrE23B2BQGRQhizjsn931b3+32EXXF 06IIbRabfsgVi7C/3m3mQA0OlgUpcLeHJ1j9xraeJJU1KCDKTLf8dq5ZkwbVSca6 RnaPRCBfbxGDM2/E5qPYvVbZkAU2NCKqSZTlWflsbM1KZc69dAlTPR7myfRQpyHn ZPI/CLlrJlswImNgsHy2It+XTIf7R2jIjJIBC3BVxkSavm7ExrcWTIIONeYHPSGT 6rO086XtDNV7rmvhRYcppehhN3WBWkYo+2LFmqcNWr1kkNJ2+iK3PKYplVCpEO9Q == Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 44f22t02s3-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:04:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from m0356516.ppops.net (m0356516.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.18.0.8/8.18.0.8) with ESMTP id 50SFlpKp019460; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:04:58 GMT Received: from ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (5d.69.3da9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.61.105.93]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 44f22t02s1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:04:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pps.filterd (ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 50SDru4W028051; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:04:57 GMT Received: from smtprelay01.fra02v.mail.ibm.com ([9.218.2.227]) by ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 44dbskbwa3-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:04:57 +0000 Received: from smtpav06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com [10.20.54.105]) by smtprelay01.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 50SG4r0H49676710 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:04:53 GMT Received: from smtpav06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B69CC2004D; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:04:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 512452004B; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:04:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.152.224.153] (unknown [9.152.224.153]) by smtpav06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:04:53 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 17:04:53 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/7] Provide an ism layer To: dust.li@linux.alibaba.com, Niklas Schnelle , Julian Ruess , Wenjia Zhang , Jan Karcher , Gerd Bayer , Halil Pasic , "D. Wythe" , Tony Lu , Wen Gu , Peter Oberparleiter , David Miller , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Eric Dumazet , Andrew Lunn Cc: Thorsten Winkler , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Heiko Carstens , Vasily Gorbik , Alexander Gordeev , Christian Borntraeger , Sven Schnelle , Simon Horman References: <20250115195527.2094320-1-wintera@linux.ibm.com> <20250116093231.GD89233@linux.alibaba.com> <0f96574a-567e-495a-b815-6aef336f12e6@linux.ibm.com> <20250117021353.GF89233@linux.alibaba.com> <20250118153154.GI89233@linux.alibaba.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Alexandra Winter In-Reply-To: <20250118153154.GI89233@linux.alibaba.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: bqTxHgDLz9v6OtbVeE4rZTOzDHUAMPxZ X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: GZwnthjqGa3SwAk86z333Lvaf-Bouc1x X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1057,Hydra:6.0.680,FMLib:17.12.68.34 definitions=2025-01-28_04,2025-01-27_01,2024-11-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=590 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2411120000 definitions=main-2501280119 On 18.01.25 16:31, Dust Li wrote: > On 2025-01-17 11:38:39, Niklas Schnelle wrote: >> On Fri, 2025-01-17 at 10:13 +0800, Dust Li wrote: >>>> >> ---8<--- >>>> Here are some of my thoughts on the matter: >>>>>> >>>>>> Naming and Structure: I suggest we refer to it as SHD (Shared Memory >>>>>> Device) instead of ISM (Internal Shared Memory). >>>> >>>> >>>> So where does the 'H' come from? If you want to call it Shared Memory _D_evice? >>> >>> Oh, I was trying to refer to SHM(Share memory file in the userspace, see man >>> shm_open(3)). SMD is also OK. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To my knowledge, a >>>>>> "Shared Memory Device" better encapsulates the functionality we're >>>>>> aiming to implement. >>>> >>>> >>>> Could you explain why that would be better? >>>> 'Internal Shared Memory' is supposed to be a bit of a counterpart to the >>>> Remote 'R' in RoCE. Not the greatest name, but it is used already by our ISM >>>> devices and by ism_loopback. So what is the benefit in changing it? >>> >>> I believe that if we are going to separate and refine the code, and add >>> a common subsystem, we should choose the most appropriate name. >>> >>> In my opinion, "ISM" doesn’t quite capture what the device provides. >>> Since we’re adding a "Device" that enables different entities (such as >>> processes or VMs) to perform shared memory communication, I think a more >>> fitting name would be better. If you have any alternative suggestions, >>> I’m open to them. >> >> I kept thinking about this a bit and I'd like to propose yet another >> name for this group of devices: Memory Communication Devices (MCD) >> >> One important point I see is that there is a bit of a misnomer in the >> existing ISM name in that our ISM device does in fact *not* share >> memory in the common sense of the "shared memory" wording. Instead it >> copies data between partitions of memory that share a common >> cache/memory hierarchy while not sharing the memory itself. loopback- >> ism and a possibly future virtio-ism on the other hand would share >> memory in the "shared memory" sense. Though I'd very much hope they >> will retain a copy mode to allow use in partition scenarios. >> >> With that background I think the common denominator between them and >> the main idea behind ISM is that they facilitate communication via >> memory buffers and very simple and reliable copy/share operations. I >> think this would also capture our planned use-case of devices (TTYs, >> block devices, framebuffers + HID etc) provided by a peer on top of >> such a memory communication device. > > Make sense, I agree with MCD. > > Best regard, > Dust > In the discussion with Andrew Lunn, it showed that a) we need an abstract description of 'ISM' devices (noted) b) DMBs (Direct Memory Buffers) are a critical differentiator. So what do your think of Direct Memory Communication (DMC) as class name for these devices? I don't have a strong preference (we could also stay with ISM). But DMC may be a bit more concrete than MCD or ISM.