On Thu, Jan 12 2023, Xuan Zhuo <xuanz...@linux.alibaba.com> wrote: > On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 09:42:05 +0100, Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 12 2023, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 10:01:25AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 11:11 PM Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 19:08:53 +0800 >> >> > Xuan Zhuo <xuanz...@linux.alibaba.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > > > +ISM(Internal Shared Memory) device provides the ability to share >> >> > > > > memory between >> >> > > > > +different VMs launched from the same entity. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Launched by instead of from? Maybe introduce a catchy name for the >> >> > > > "entity that launched the VMs" and prevent oversimplification by >> >> > > > explaining any shortcomings of the name if any in one place. Host >> >> > > > would >> >> > > > be one candidate, VMM another. >> >> > > >> >> > > Cornelia Huck wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > Is there a way to avoid the term "host" (throughout this >> >> > > document)? >> >> > > IIUC, you need the uniqueness within the scope of the entity >> >> > > that >> >> > > launches the different instances that get shared access to the >> >> > > regions >> >> > > (which could conceivably a unit of hardware?) >> >> > > >> >> > > And I think she is right, so I am trying to remove the term HOST. >> >> > > >> >> > > Do you have better opinions? I think VMM is not particularly suitable. >> > >> > I think fundamentally from spec POV memory is shared between devices. >> > How sharing is accomplished guest does not care so neither should the >> > spec. Can some RDMA tricks be used for synchronisation behind the >> > scenes? Maybe, the spec does not care. But we can give an example. >> > >> > So something like: >> > >> > An ISM(Internal Shared Memory) device provides the ability to >> > access memory shared between multiple devices. This allows low-overhead >> > communication in presence of such memory. For example, memory can be >> > shared with guests of multiple virtual machines running on the same >> > host, with each virtual machine including an ISM device and with >> > the guests using the ISM devices to access the shared memory. >> > >> > what do others think? >> >> 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
