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 588A1A0A02; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 19:45:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF95D140D38; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 19:45:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B999140D1E for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 19:45:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FD025C00C8; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 13:45:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 13 Jan 2021 13:45:23 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm3; bh= pRqqVodXSlH1wN8ECvgN868ODoBKWaSGfQWELLIbDok=; b=2lX5c4YIVldCubhA 6rGzU5R4qwD5ELtAk4+p3yCEw1db/SfJlzpatVIGxQeX9K9bfVmHgNeH0f8Ut+KF Qv3rqSCDWNiw7sugZmfF51Khiv9CQv94k+42eJRa1wjtNn6uPVxgSbJbna3drdKe iGi2/VEaa6V9vmEhJdpSLVs1bK31+ep6+1ygWjUpaS/lWm5kZbg2XyM9WNF21lCT xtjHGd960iPASAJAg+NKOomPK5xtJgliQBRH+qHbN1IbOnpcRhIdDD8p+C2jeE8G PWpXSLW8OZLuMFSuWQMnpP5N2+0iSMLvYI/qF3RnVxFdBHd0YiMPcwW5f9IDOh/A eYGubA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=pRqqVodXSlH1wN8ECvgN868ODoBKWaSGfQWELLIbD ok=; b=hhXekxwkEfb9OHPzlKYxBiGCC7hMdmyki1+0IyrfMjuNToS/rWZW5c1pY pIrvaxPjU9/Iz+6m5Es5kGHlZxYaMy0KJ3WZNj8XYnlDabzEHpeOCza3hR14onMo GxxXrDWq+KjdNg1bzuZNTKBKAthMaHivhWNHCByHqQM9cO9MiCBW10bYpLeKIUkf 7xe9eYKU2sVm+fh++U2RgOnJ9Z+bJN/uIIVj+dWCZOWgDXOP+cZAoW2UBTC2ln1H jDfCI6EuGxn52XpwJHrb73rjKl58xtz7WaUTOiBMEpr7gFhCA87mLChbC8/zRtv+ U59+cBmqyY6/uClNJzLrNCPcmYfpA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedukedrtdefgdduudeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghruf hiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghl ohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DD149240064; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 13:45:21 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Igor Ryzhov Cc: Stephen Hemminger , dev , Ferruh Yigit , kevin.traynor@redhat.com, "Richardson, Bruce" , hemant.agrawal@nxp.com, Jerin Jacob , Olivier Matz , maxime.coquelin@redhat.com Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 19:45:20 +0100 Message-ID: <2972532.pOxcSfYYoZ@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <1699913.2mAdEQRYyP@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] KNI alternatives X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 13/01/2021 19:17, Igor Ryzhov: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 8:10 PM Stephen Hemminger < > stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021, 9:06 AM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > As discussed today in the techboard meeting, KNI has probably > > > better alternatives today without using an out-of-tree module. > > > Virtio-user is a good candidate to replace KNI. > > > What is the performance of TAP? > > > Is there a way to leverage af_packet, af_xdp, or even pcap interfaces? > > > > Last time I tried. > > Virtio user was as fast as KNI and consumed less cpu. Was seeing 10mpps > > Tap was much slower. Like 1mpps. > > Performance is not the only question. The advantage of KNI we are currently > using is > the ability to control the DPDK interfaces by the kernel. > For example, to implement bonding in the DPDK application, it is possible > to create KNI > pair for each physical interface, create a bond interface in Linux over > those KNI interfaces > and just pass LACP packets between the app and the kernel. The kernel > itself will control > MACs, MTU, etc. of underlying interfaces. AFAIK it's not possible with > virtio-user or tap. > Am I wrong? I see at least 2 alternatives for bonding with kernel management: - mlx5 bonding - af_xdp interface for most of NICs