DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Tetsuya.Mukawa" <mukawa@igel.co.jp>
To: "Ouyang, Changchun" <changchun.ouyang@intel.com>,
	 "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: Katsuya MATSUBARA <matsu@igel.co.jp>,
	"nakajima.yoshihiro@lab.ntt.co.jp"
	<nakajima.yoshihiro@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
	Hitoshi Masutani <masutani.hitoshi@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] lib/librte_vhost: qemu vhost-user support into DPDK vhost library
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:58:28 +0900
Message-ID: <53FD7384.3050209@igel.co.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53FD6C4E.5040907@igel.co.jp>

(2014/08/27 14:27), Tetsuya.Mukawa wrote:
> 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.
Thank for pointing out my misleading expression.

Correct: transmission latency
Incorrect: transmission speed

Tetsuya,


>
> 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

  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-08-27  5:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-08-26 11:05 Xie, Huawei
2014-08-27  0:43 ` Ouyang, Changchun
2014-08-27  4:39   ` Tetsuya.Mukawa
2014-08-27  5:01     ` Ouyang, Changchun
2014-08-27  5:27       ` Tetsuya.Mukawa
2014-08-27  5:56         ` Xie, Huawei
2014-08-27  6:07           ` Tetsuya.Mukawa
2014-08-27  5:58         ` Tetsuya.Mukawa [this message]
2014-08-27  6:00         ` Ouyang, Changchun
2014-08-27  6:09           ` Tetsuya.Mukawa
2014-09-13  5:27 ` Linhaifeng
2014-09-16  1:36   ` Xie, Huawei

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=53FD7384.3050209@igel.co.jp \
    --to=mukawa@igel.co.jp \
    --cc=changchun.ouyang@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=masutani.hitoshi@lab.ntt.co.jp \
    --cc=matsu@igel.co.jp \
    --cc=nakajima.yoshihiro@lab.ntt.co.jp \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

DPDK patches and discussions

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \
		dev@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index dev

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.dev


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git