From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E216594F for ; Thu, 22 May 2014 14:08:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 May 2014 05:08:09 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.98,887,1392192000"; d="scan'208";a="543313499" Received: from irsmsx104.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.159]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 May 2014 05:08:08 -0700 Received: from irsmsx106.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.3.31) by IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.3.159) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Thu, 22 May 2014 13:06:56 +0100 Received: from irsmsx101.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.249]) by IRSMSX106.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.8.28]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 22 May 2014 13:06:55 +0100 From: "Burakov, Anatoly" To: Thomas Monjalon Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 08/16] Add support for mapping devices through VFIO. Thread-Index: AQHPc3pXCHomzD8lD0mKR5G/Z8BpJ5tMcREAgAARV0A= Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 12:06:53 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1400514709-24087-9-git-send-email-anatoly.burakov@intel.com> <6426409.afQ7rpamsg@xps13> In-Reply-To: <6426409.afQ7rpamsg@xps13> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 08/16] Add support for mapping devices through VFIO. 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: Thu, 22 May 2014 12:08:11 -0000 Hi Thomas, > How did you test this feature? > Did you see some performance differences with igb_uio? The same way everything else is tested - bind a NIC to the driver and see i= f it works :-) As for performance differences, potentially it can be degraded a bit becaus= e of mandatory IOMMU involvement, but I did not see any performance impact = during my tests. > For history reason, it's better to explain in another patch that eal_hpet= has > been renamed eal_timer and there is no such need anymore in this file. Agreed. >=20 > We should discuss a way to request igb_uio or VFIO binding of a device. Why? The device can either be bound to VFIO or igb_uio. So unless you want = binding code in DPDK EAL (to avoid which the pci_unbind/igb_uio_bind/dpdk_b= ind script was created in the first place), I see no point in that. The dpd= k_bind script already does that (you bind either to igb_uio or to vfio-pci)= . > This whole socket communication deserves a separated patch with protocol > description. Agreed, I'll break it up and provide a more detailed explanation. > By the way, I'm not a big fan of the suffix "_socket" which can be mislea= ding. > But I have no other good naming idea. Would _mp_socket do? =20 > So we have another thread to manage. > I don't see where it is spawned? In rte_eal_pci_init(). > You are defining some variables in a .h file. I think it is a problem. Well, they need to be shared between several .c files. =20 > Here are some other relevant errors from checkpatch.pl: Thanks, I'll fix those. Best regards, Anatoly Burakov DPDK SW Engineer