From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA2F46D69; Tue, 19 Aug 2025 23:56:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68A5D40651; Tue, 19 Aug 2025 23:56:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pl1-f175.google.com (mail-pl1-f175.google.com [209.85.214.175]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38A974026C for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2025 23:56:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pl1-f175.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2445811e19dso46707385ad.1 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:56:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1755640566; x=1756245366; darn=dpdk.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=KiEQQ/5flOQTAKJzUy+9C1ZBzVosTjxKoQ4McRWqWnk=; b=W77el7n6152aScd8CEwU6nWu7tUaHcE3F6VwLEBV3q3wpYKveornTUzMKG5rSsAZbZ 36E9VQ7IpRTLQs2Ep5Bv+y9EB4RdlU7AJ9b89xiUr9RgFDpE7d+C/0XEMb6ngfpjMXJ6 BKTIklza7XCvo9di7eEk5lIGwRl943RDqYxWk= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1755640566; x=1756245366; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=KiEQQ/5flOQTAKJzUy+9C1ZBzVosTjxKoQ4McRWqWnk=; b=S8am/kpWhS1VQZxIDKNDy/2RIzVzUUnjxqUsUusxiuGRWbDkd5jfZ2wIFhKowUEzH/ i/DgIkAh/PUnspyVTBo2Z1Gu+A+s/ajuAunOApRdbxprRV9BFpDYhnknyemoSe2MClQp xoRnJsuJBxGiMVG+HlsDioTJAqfSxPScvgS57vnJzwnP8jIYzjoXG2Ca8eecQgCQQ/U5 O84zAxXeywz0fegXSmQGmFleIRpe63EIw13EC2b76ZCVJKQuMl3jvwL1sNeiZjGdf6SD mf0w+cxOf+br92nNsaNTVApjshv4A0Cyna3cFn+uCY1rkbmhfD3G7DLg7kYQF4rqZJ/E UgMw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUvDlJ4/x3uGZAqargeC5FtA+BBB+PV/xP6Qneh1MX4vlaF19gDGx+hoGSrPF1nokXaBA==@dpdk.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzDOQhGl+JHNhcBAvHcYd3ri/A5bbyCQBzAH0bm+aqhmef9aHHE FqJoZIqXO/YsyQsSNPZxFiT9Cv6fjLlqXKU94TVGpm8Hzl1yoo0KsCBT8wGRi7iKqUiqxkhACW+ nr98s0MroV4bAUjflnjLzEVY8jobxFvvKRo/0jFshcw== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctdLYe1GBOt2hGKrbZ/2cai2Apdm77+KiNsVM0m3NCnAj7ox2hzOOF997y7o5D dXZK7+5iFpvGPHuIglYcfKO1/zWCt4in9ew+KaYD/JR7IovmjUWOogzUGms40dQ2O1JpuFbHr7f 8SQfFp5NVf3yUVIgeokAeIgEuhNcusZzhAfSATnEaTveEkvTELVhqG8v186WGodFq8t2qyVzvEe 9KmcrDkVc50wAf5yc8wuiWPO2ppXORC X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEd555I25GBHpyYL4oPxW60KWrM2Urv2JWldjE8B44lFcW3fz2kDjIDALiUpoBUyELPaF6Xekk8/ufI2WNLbPQ= X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:1aeb:b0:242:9bc6:63c3 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-245ef27bb12mr5052735ad.54.1755640566302; Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:56:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Patrick Robb Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 17:49:35 -0400 X-Gm-Features: Ac12FXzR0FNJWV1cheyq3ai0wArbD6XK9lw735EAjCigjJe8Rh0YL_65L7jAnb0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Virtio testing goals for DTS To: Aaron Conole , Maxime Coquelin Cc: Chenbo Xia , dev , "ci@dpdk.org" , Dean Marx Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004ee562063cbeec5c" X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK CI discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ci-bounces@dpdk.org --0000000000004ee562063cbeec5c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Adding Dean who I forgot to CC. On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 5:48=E2=80=AFPM Patrick Robb wr= ote: > Hi Aaron or Maxime, > > I want to get your perspective on our testing goals for virtio in DTS if > you are willing. > > Dean, who works on DTS, has been running various PVP and PVVP virtio > workloads on one of the SUT servers at UNH, as well as some single VM and > double VM (with inter VM DPDK forwarding) virtio workloads just on his > laptop, so that we can start to get an idea of how we can start validatin= g > DPDK virtio. > > We are aware that there is likely a need/desire for us to setup some > vhost-user + virtio testsuites, i.e. there is a tester (traffic gen) serv= er > paired up against a SUT server, the SUT server sets up vhost-user > device(s), creates a VM(s), and creates a virtio-net-pci device which is > connected to the vhost socket from the host, and then we start testpmd in > the VM using the virtio-net-pci device(s). Then we send traffic from the = TG > and assess the DPDK behavior inside the virtio VM. Or, we can run the > testpmd inside the VM frontend in tx_only mode and transmit traffic to th= e > backend vhost testpmd. In any case, these are vhost testplan specific > details which don't really pertain to my real question which is below. > > The question I have for you is do you think there would be any benefit to > producing testcases that validating DPDK usage of virtio-net-pci devices = in > a VM, but without involving Vhost, and keeping the entire "test" > constrained to a single host. By this I mean, instead of setting up some > vhost/testpmd application on the SUT and forwarding packets from physical > NIC ports to the vhost vdev (which is then accessed by the VM virtio > interfaces), the testcases would involve creating a TAP interface(s) on t= he > SUT, then making a VM and accessing the TAP interfaces via a virtio > interface in the VM, and then just starting Scapy on the SUT host and > sending traffic at the TAP interfaces, which goes into the VM? This would > mean that the test would not involve any physical devices, but it would > still be validating DPDK Virtio. One reason why this is attractive is tha= t > it would not require particular hardware, I.e. it runs on 1 system and th= at > system could even be your laptop since it only relies on virtual > interfaces. David had asked about this possibility at Prague, and I think > at that time Maxime piped up to say "and this would also be useful for > virtio" or something like that. Anyhow, let me know if you think this mak= es > sense or any other thoughts you may have. If it is a reasonable direction > to go in we can start drawing up test plans. > > I realize this is kind of a wall of text... happy to discuss at the CI > meeting on Thursday if that is better. > > Thanks, > Patrick > --0000000000004ee562063cbeec5c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Adding Dean who I forgot to CC.

On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 5:48=E2=80=AFPM Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu> wrote:
Hi Aaron or Maxime,=C2=A0

I wan= t to get your perspective on our testing goals for virtio in DTS if you are= willing.

Dean, who works on DTS, has been running= various PVP and PVVP=C2=A0virtio workloads on one of the SUT servers at UN= H, as well as some single VM and double VM (with inter VM DPDK forwarding) = virtio workloads just on his laptop, so that we can start to get an idea of= how we can start validating DPDK virtio.

We are a= ware that there is likely a need/desire for us to setup some vhost-user=C2= =A0+ virtio testsuites, i.e. there is a tester (traffic gen) server paired = up against a SUT=C2=A0server, the SUT server sets up vhost-user device(s), = creates a VM(s), and creates a virtio-net-pci device which is connected to = the vhost socket from the host, and then we start testpmd in the VM using t= he virtio-net-pci device(s). Then we send traffic from the TG and assess th= e DPDK behavior inside the virtio VM. Or, we can run the testpmd inside the= VM frontend in tx_only mode and transmit traffic to the backend vhost test= pmd. In any case, these are vhost testplan specific details which don't= really pertain to my real question which is below.

The question I have for you is do you think there would be any benefit to= producing testcases that validating DPDK usage of virtio-net-pci devices i= n a VM, but without involving Vhost, and keeping the entire "test"= ; constrained to a single host. By this I mean, instead of setting up some = vhost/testpmd application on the SUT and forwarding packets from physical N= IC ports to the vhost vdev (which is then accessed by the VM virtio interfa= ces), the testcases would involve creating a TAP interface(s) on the SUT, t= hen making a VM and accessing the TAP interfaces via a virtio interface in = the VM, and then just starting Scapy on the SUT host and sending traffic at= the TAP interfaces, which goes into the VM? This would mean that the test = would not involve any physical devices, but it would still be validating DP= DK Virtio. One reason why this is attractive is that it would not require p= articular hardware, I.e. it runs on 1 system and that system could even be = your laptop since it only relies on virtual interfaces. David had asked abo= ut this possibility at Prague, and I think at that time Maxime piped up to = say "and this would also be useful for virtio" or something like = that. Anyhow, let me know if you think this makes sense or any other though= ts you=C2=A0may have. If it is a reasonable direction to go in we can start= drawing up test plans.

I realize this is kind of = a wall of text... happy to discuss at the CI meeting on Thursday if that is= better.

Thanks,
Patrick
--0000000000004ee562063cbeec5c--