On 1/29/18, 8:29 AM, "Stefan Hajnoczi" <stefa...@gmail.com> wrote:
<trim>
Each new feature has a cost in terms of maintainance, testing,
documentation, and support. Users need to be educated about the role of
each available storage controller and how to choose between them.
I'm not sure why QEMU should go in this direction since it makes the
landscape more complex and harder to support. You've said the
performance is comparable to vhost-user-blk. So what does NVMe offer
that makes this worthwhile?
A cool NVMe feature would be the ability to pass through invididual
queues to different guests without SR-IOV. In other words, bind a queue
to namespace subset so that multiple guests can be isolated from each
other. That way the data path would not require vmexits. The control
path and device initialization would still be emulated by QEMU so the
hardware does not need to provide the full resources and state needed
for SR-IOV. I looked into this but came to the conclusion that it would
require changes to the NVMe specification because the namespace is a
per-command field.
Correct – any command from any queue can access any namespace on the controller.
Another reason this is not possible is that most (if not all?) controllers have
CAP.DSTRD (Doorbell Stride) = 0, meaning doorbell registers for all queues fall
within the same page.
