From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754945Ab2BPT2b (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:28:31 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:24733 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751791Ab2BPT2a (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:28:30 -0500 Message-ID: <4F3D58CE.2070209@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:28:14 +0200 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120131 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: michael@ellerman.id.au CC: Arnd Bergmann , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alexander Graf , KVM list , linux-kernel , Eric Northup , Scott Wood Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api References: <4F2AB552.2070909@redhat.com> <1328597934.6802.6.camel@concordia> <201202152221.36154.arnd@arndb.de> <1329354245.6976.25.camel@concordia> In-Reply-To: <1329354245.6976.25.camel@concordia> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 02/16/2012 03:04 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > > > ioctl is good for hardware devices and stuff that you want to enumerate > > and/or control permissions on. For something like KVM that is really a > > core kernel service, a syscall makes much more sense. > > Yeah maybe. That distinction is at least in part just historical. > > The first problem I see with using a syscall is that you don't need one > syscall for KVM, you need ~90. OK so you wouldn't do that, you'd use a > multiplexed syscall like epoll_ctl() - or probably several > (vm/vcpu/etc). No. Many of our ioctls are for state save/restore - we reduce that to two. Many others are due to the with/without irqchip support - we slash that as well. The device assignment stuff is relegated to vfio. I still have to draw up a concrete proposal, but I think we'll end up with 10-15. > > Secondly you still need a handle/context for those syscalls, and I think > the most sane thing to use for that is an fd. The context is the process (for vm-wide calls) and thread (for vcpu local calls). > > At that point you've basically reinvented ioctl :) > > I also think it is an advantage that you have a node in /dev for > permissions. I know other "core kernel" interfaces don't use a /dev > node, but arguably that is their loss. Have to agree with that. Theoretically we don't need permissions for /dev/kvm, but in practice we do. -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain.