Re: Can vhost translate to io_uring?

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 01:02:58AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 
> I am sad my idea for simplifying things did not work out.
> 
> 
> Let's try an even bigger idea to reduce maintenance and simplify things.
> 
> Could vhost depend on io_uring?
> 
> Could vhost just be a translation layer of existing vhost requests to
> io_uring requests?

I expect that's going to have a measureable performance impact.

> At a quick glance it looks like io_uring already supports the
> functionality that vhost supports (which I think is networking and
> scsi).
> 
> If vhost could become a translation layer that would allow removing
> the vhost worker and PF_USER_WORKER could be removed completely,
> leaving only PF_IO_WORKER.
> 
> 
> I suggest this because a significant vhost change is needed because in
> the long term the hacks in exec and coredump are not a good idea.  Which
> means something like my failed "[PATCH v3] fork, vhost: Use CLONE_THREAD
> to fix freezer/ps regression".
> 
> If we have to go to all of the trouble of reworking things it why can't
> we just make io_uring do all of the work?
> 
> Eric