From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f182.google.com (mail-pf0-f182.google.com [209.85.192.182]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23B8F47CD for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2016 07:10:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pf0-f182.google.com with SMTP id 62so63093246pfd.1 for ; Sun, 05 Jun 2016 22:10:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=igel-co-jp.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:subject:to:references:cc:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RuYug6IiAaMeCsmkOR+lLR75dSoVLlYM/NVLzGPqu2g=; b=jVjOTqn8fTLk+cyTW0Zno9zAedWmWqjei/4nTD7ppNg+hD/yDqKTye93M++N13Cy0p OaNnQCuhWHcnlyBRk60CQvEueqG4XMztfzyl2REm/8v5g1/TJSCpSSm6o8IiMCfX6o9W 9ZJllXJf4xLKd4jmHYvvH7OMMOzZFk/i0dIngTAfdhxhOmO4sn52p7NB5XsEIl+m6i9m fmTmN59IRfcin5qRoM8n4oxk/qcDmF9yjeB0aY6v0amJm1K9z3Jafk0UiE7Dfc2c3tPy 34tQK9e/yGgL82CHZDgpthr+B+gsQSMXeu4C82bgynExk7hoprB2lRpimlJV3jxWtS4K QqlA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:subject:to:references:cc:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RuYug6IiAaMeCsmkOR+lLR75dSoVLlYM/NVLzGPqu2g=; b=eUphynKvaS7C38ULe3hWlsR7AzxwnVLlbR3OSkXPrisXjEem3mFjnu0F//N5YcLEes Oct9mwXm8FsB1BCB17D5d8ESvAxIVoJoaTa5FukQ3Ihcp+dycFoK7xOro6hMa/QbAp0A hAtO0p7UN156tI54CqORcj610bq4D9venBeH7Ow6fAiNz+s8Rn5kj6hw0lliUP7hL1g5 Mg48Eq28FMup+G8F/RLTVvb0zS5kzjRBLJUnQEanbw3BHINVPhzzTbHn60zDkaHBqVFO NcApI/ucVizvpFOKlELHyiD/QV6wE6lFHYX+FkTsUOcEllSnX4CO4ogQctTukg9sL8Cg kglw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tK/h8Ya+GJ+DAPxhYYuBr/UWJnhuJyEuf/VzQbXRRh2gFDQQ6l5vRG2d2G9vCrQHA== X-Received: by 10.98.58.84 with SMTP id h81mr23394842pfa.93.1465189848351; Sun, 05 Jun 2016 22:10:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.16.129.101] (napt.igel.co.jp. [219.106.231.132]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id s86sm23762244pfi.69.2016.06.05.22.10.46 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 05 Jun 2016 22:10:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Tetsuya Mukawa To: Yuanhan Liu References: <1457512409-24403-12-git-send-email-mukawa@igel.co.jp> <1464838185-21751-1-git-send-email-mukawa@igel.co.jp> <20160602073105.GS10038@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <687ff542-f97b-8706-5f96-0727dfcdf174@igel.co.jp> <20160603041748.GW10038@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> Cc: dev@dpdk.org, jianfeng.tan@intel.com, huawei.xie@intel.com, Thomas Monjalon , David Marchand , "nakajima.yoshihiro@lab.ntt.co.jp" Message-ID: <17d81002-b582-f866-100d-3f8ea5068089@igel.co.jp> Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 14:10:46 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160603041748.GW10038@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/6] Virtio-net PMD: QEMU QTest extension for container X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2016 05:10:49 -0000 Hi Yuanhan, Sorry for late replying. On 2016/06/03 13:17, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 06:30:18PM +0900, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote: >> Hi Yuanhan, >> >> On 2016/06/02 16:31, Yuanhan Liu wrote: >>> But still, I'd ask do we really need 2 virtio for container solutions? >> >> I appreciate your comments. > > No, I appreciate your effort for contributing to DPDK! vhost-pmd stuff > is just brilliant! > >> Let me have time to discuss it with our team. > > I'm wondering could we have one solution only. IMO, the drawback of > having two (quite different) solutions might outweighs the benefit > it takes. Say, it might just confuse user. I agree with this. If we have 2 solutions, it would confuse the DPDK users. > > OTOH, I'm wondering could you adapt to Jianfeng's solution? If not, > what's the missing parts, and could we fix it? I'm thinking having > one unified solution will keep ours energy/focus on one thing, making > it better and better! Having two just splits the energy; it also > introduces extra burden for maintaining. Of course, I adopt Jiangeng's solution basically. Actually, his solution is almost similar I tried to implement at first. I guess here is pros/cons of 2 solutions. [Jianfeng's solution] - Pros Don't need to invoke QEMU process. - Cons If virtio-net specification is changed, we need to implement it by ourselves. Also, LSC interrupt and control queue functions are not supported yet. I agree both functions may not be so important, and if we need it we can implement them, but we need to pay energy to implement them. [My solution] - Pros Basic principle of my implementation is not to reinvent the wheel. We can use a virtio-net device of QEMU implementation, it means we don't need to maintain virtio-net device by ourselves, and we can use all of functions supported by QEMU virtio-net device. - Cons Need to invoke QEMU process. Anyway, we can choose one of belows. 1. Take advantage of invoking less processes. 2. Take advantage of maintainability of virtio-net device. Honestly, I'm OK if my solution is not merged. Thus, it should be decided to let DPDK better. What do you think? Which is better for DPDK? Thanks, Tetsuya > > --yliu >