Re: Why I advise against using ivshmem

[Vincent JARDIN <vincent.jardin@6wind.com>]

Markus,

see inline (I am not on all mailing list, please, keep the cc list).

 > Sure!  The reasons for my dislike range from practical to
 > philosophical.
>
> My practical concerns include:
>
> 1. ivshmem code needs work, but has no maintainer
See David's contributions:
   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/358750/

> 2. There is no libvirt support

One can use qemu without libvivrt.

> 3. Out-of-tree server program required for full functionality

We have the source code, it provides the documentation to write our own 
better server program.

> 4. Out-of-tree kernel uio driver required

No, it is optional.

> These concerns are all fixable, but it'll take serious work, and time.
> Something like:
>
> * Find a maintainer for the device model
I guess, we can find it into the DPDK.org community.

> * Review and fix its code
>
> * Get the required kernel module upstream

which module? uio, it is not required.

> * Get all the required parts outside QEMU packaged in major distros, or
>    absorbed into QEMU

Redhat did disable it. why? it is there in QEMU.

> In short, create a viable community around ivshmem, either within the
> QEMU community, or separately but cooperating.

At least, DPDK.org community is a community using it.

> On to the more philosophical ones.
>
> 5. Out-of-tree interface required
>
>     Paraphrasing an old quip: Some people, when confronted with a
>     problem, think "I know, I'll use shared memory."  Now they have two
>     problems.
>
>     Shared memory is not an interface.  It's at best something you can
>     use to build an interface.
>
>     I'd rather have us offer something with a little bit more structure.
>     Very fast guest-to-guest networking perhaps.

It is not just networking, you have other use cases like HPC, sharing 
in-memory databases.

>
> 6. Device models belong into QEMU
>
>     Say you build an actual interface on top of ivshmem.  Then ivshmem in
>     QEMU together with the supporting host code outside QEMU (see 3.) and
>     the lower layer of the code using it in guests (kernel + user space)
>     provide something that to me very much looks like a device model.
>
>     Device models belong into QEMU.  It's what QEMU does.
See my previous statement, it is not just device model.


Best regards,
   Vincent