From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C38A7F14 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 09:32:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Jun 2016 00:32:08 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,432,1459839600"; d="scan'208";a="970393317" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.67.162]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Jun 2016 00:32:06 -0700 Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:33:02 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Tetsuya Mukawa Cc: "Tan, Jianfeng" , dev@dpdk.org, huawei.xie@intel.com, Thomas Monjalon , David Marchand , "nakajima.yoshihiro@lab.ntt.co.jp" Message-ID: <20160607073302.GI10038@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <20160602073105.GS10038@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <687ff542-f97b-8706-5f96-0727dfcdf174@igel.co.jp> <20160603041748.GW10038@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <17d81002-b582-f866-100d-3f8ea5068089@igel.co.jp> <20160606072153.GY10038@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <62bdc1ee-c4a0-cc77-bd2f-a320c46e6bf5@igel.co.jp> <20160606084933.GA10038@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <7663e753-e7c6-6aec-e6a3-6039bdbfecff@igel.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) 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: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 07:32:09 -0000 On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 04:12:28PM +0900, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote: > On 2016/06/06 19:50, Tan, Jianfeng wrote: > >> Please let me make sure how we can invoke many DPDK applications in > >> hundreds containers. > >> (Do we have a way to do? Or, will we have it in the future?) > > > > Just to add some option here, we cannot say no to that kind of use case. > > To have many instances, we can: > > > > (1) add a restriction of "cpu share" on each instance, relying on kernel > > to schedule. > > (2) enable interrupt mode, so that one instance can go to sleep when it > > has no pkts to receive and awoke by vhost backend when pkts come. > > > > Option 2 is my choice. > > Hi Yuanhan and Jianfeng, > > Thanks for your descriptions about how you will invoke many DPDK > applications in containers. > I guess we have almost talked everything we need to consider to choose > one of container implementations. > > We may have one conclusion about this choice. > If we can easily maintain virtio device implementation, AFAIK, yes. > also if we have > an use-case to invoke hundreds of DPDK applications in containers, I Don't know yet, but it seems easier to achieve that with Jianfeng's solution. > guess Jianfeng's implementation will be nice. I'm afraid that's what I'm seeing. > Anyway, we just follow virtio maintainers choice. Thanks, and of course, contribution is huge welcome so that we could have a better container solution! --yliu