Re: Can vhost translate to io_uring?

[Jens Axboe]

On 6/14/23 12:25?AM, michael.christie@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 6/14/23 1:02 AM, 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?
>>
>> 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
> 
> It would be nice if the vhost layer could use the io-wq code as sort of
> generic worker. I can look into what that would take if Jens is ok
> with that type of thing.

Certainly. io-wq is mostly generic, eg it has no understanding of
io_uring internals or commands and structs, and it should be possible to
just setup a struct io_wq and use that.

Obviously might need a bit of refactoring work and exporting of symbols,
io_uring is y/n so we don't export anything. But I think it should all
be minor work, really.

-- 
Jens Axboe