From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f53.google.com (mail-pa0-f53.google.com [209.85.220.53]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 650E95942 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:23:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id rd3so25017687pab.40 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 22:27:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=NTlCYMInxVPIp5b4uDVMqLIrGXwRbxGQsikqw69mCJ0=; b=cYYa2Gn2rKFuWEEP4qRg00o9QWC8+gtfNSgXa1jb9jPFJubaxA+ZQvY1udNFjhNrii wPb+1548SOlt8RR+imbmhEzrhv5POX0FfiQxNoG/MGjZsZPxd3C5FyR14PGVOY0v2Ons th2tn2HYEUaqhz56f9Yc/oULAQD5FISQt9kV5OoMvj556WIoPkbYUp008tvbyCnbqiVN T4jkbWp0w7bl8VRCPfZLgtPlJtLiwRovCfYG9TlyvaM1F2AiQxVhvOCvdaYubJxjoZUb Shz6qu6ytcbZ98cRBkD0IIdFWO8QdNGE+KGtHAWVdIvsGXbieOEBx7JDS2ZsjDpORcxP KzKw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm563FTykK/GqeipjxDkFmyrKU+nuamBcImpyBh4+udjcl5gt2v66EoyWQF4Kqa3FgGcNHu X-Received: by 10.68.164.164 with SMTP id yr4mr42731360pbb.57.1409117264415; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 22:27:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.16.129.101] (napt.igel.co.jp. [219.106.231.132]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qp15sm5144614pbb.54.2014.08.26.22.27.42 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 26 Aug 2014 22:27:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53FD6C4E.5040907@igel.co.jp> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:27:42 +0900 From: "Tetsuya.Mukawa" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Ouyang, Changchun" , "dev@dpdk.org" References: <53FD60FD.5090903@igel.co.jp> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Katsuya MATSUBARA , "nakajima.yoshihiro@lab.ntt.co.jp" , Hitoshi Masutani Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] lib/librte_vhost: qemu vhost-user support into DPDK vhost library 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: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:23:42 -0000 Hi Changchun, (2014/08/27 14:01), Ouyang, Changchun wrote: > Agree with you, the performance should be same as the data path (RX/TX) is not affected, > The difference between implementation only exists in the virtio device creation and destroy stage. Yes, I agree. Also There may be the difference, if a virtio-net driver on a guest isn't poll mode like a virtio-net device driver in the kernel. In the case, existing vhost implementation uses the eventfd kernel module, and vhost-user implementation uses eventfd to kick the driver. So I guess there will be the difference. Anyway, about device creation and destruction, the difference will come from transmission speed between unix domain socket and CUSE. I am not sure which is faster. Thanks, Tetsuya > > Regards, > Changchun > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tetsuya.Mukawa [mailto:mukawa@igel.co.jp] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:39 PM >> To: Ouyang, Changchun; dev@dpdk.org >> Cc: Xie, Huawei; Katsuya MATSUBARA; nakajima.yoshihiro@lab.ntt.co.jp; >> Hitoshi Masutani >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] lib/librte_vhost: qemu vhost-user support into >> DPDK vhost library >> >> >> (2014/08/27 9:43), Ouyang, Changchun wrote: >>> Do we have performance comparison between both implementation? >> Hi Changchun, >> >> If DPDK applications are running on both guest and host side, the >> performance should be almost same, because while transmitting data virt >> queues are accessed by virtio-net PMD and libvhost. In libvhost, the existing >> vhost implementation and a vhost-user implementation will shares or uses >> same code to access virt queues. So I guess the performance will be almost >> same. >> >> Thanks, >> Tetsuya >> >> >>> Thanks >>> Changchun >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Xie, Huawei >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:06 PM >>> To: dev@dpdk.org >>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] lib/librte_vhost: qemu vhost-user >>> support into DPDK vhost library >>> >>> Hi all: >>> We are implementing qemu official vhost-user interface into DPDK vhost >> library, so there would be two coexisting implementations for user space >> vhost backend. >>> Pro and cons in my mind: >>> Existing solution: >>> Pros: works with qemu version before 2.1; Cons: depends on eventfd >> proxy kernel module and extra maintenance effort Qemu vhost-user: >>> Pros: qemu official us-vhost interface; Cons: only available after >> qemu 2.1 >>> BR. >>> huawei