From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com (mail-pa0-f44.google.com [209.85.220.44]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C70D08DA6 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 03:35:39 +0100 (CET) Received: by padhx2 with SMTP id hx2so100535238pad.1 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 18:35:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=igel-co-jp.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XaxtuF62dS9gpfSZjlIda8Y0xh+HlGXRS0HqPCM3tqo=; b=Ak7n4ST1QmHofka0mCh027LIiOAyLx9oPmq/Ee7d7uzxMP4JFNtMWY0Yxrdk7H7pEr /IpZ9ADuxDwUMRhXZQmRLgJEfx5gmkg2/DFlaBPMki3G2wFrGPin1CFllESUYR8O/ihW +k3bT/n8ykLbVlDYmlle3ctKTW/eLMdo8hwcNCfQdVEPr+n3nvlfG7ayMALMYMfoDcml aZkVJGi+q2hFM//2mk32T7fxiM1vjZJLhNHUKx1MGwfDNuB9VEEEm0rMdKaL+q9UQdH6 JETyCtuXKh3gzDpm/GwxMqPBR39UcSvkwYOGFZQXJvmICY6NL+tjZhiubCOeRy1rFi+P 9/3g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=XaxtuF62dS9gpfSZjlIda8Y0xh+HlGXRS0HqPCM3tqo=; b=RZebNNDJGVzP7yhEUWWPjLmpfzNbTXFWIkcWMCX6iDcRVI/VZAbYoWrIXE2J8ujM6r k9o6Vr0JOWlnoSNy+6gopHdfaWYaggCCOjj19bu25Ff/zCfsH8nrQMWGyloVIum15gK5 ZCZT5n9zqFWWDrOU7sGIGesWOPn/k433Xlr9KuK5zp2OoNvwuGlWoFgzDfiuRUVs80D6 LpLdSWzZ1Yn7Z8cU21qHHrAYxq/6ioTnCB5De5wuJoFHF9GLoYu6MAdZKzRWY30jpUjP cRnroffhDob/bU3eAltxF0jhTv0HmhhY/lTwllSYFs7ZSKecOSOMrJ2vxMSK8/UztOdm 2kbw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkQYK/qBS51ljSpD851DRBwrpckqHYBEfGEVlrwBQogT2A7fgmoYKpTY7fVht0j1i0f9KHW X-Received: by 10.68.94.162 with SMTP id dd2mr15510630pbb.65.1447986939127; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 18:35:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.16.129.101] (napt.igel.co.jp. [219.106.231.132]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id ns1sm13241915pbc.67.2015.11.19.18.35.36 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 19 Nov 2015 18:35:38 -0800 (PST) To: "Xie, Huawei" , Rich Lane References: <1447930650-26023-1-git-send-email-mukawa@igel.co.jp> From: Tetsuya Mukawa X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <564E86F6.8030904@igel.co.jp> Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 11:35:34 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "nakajima.yoshihiro@lab.ntt.co.jp" , "zhbzg@huawei.com" , "mst@redhat.com" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "oscar.zhangbo@huawei.com" , "gaoxiaoqiu@huawei.com" , "ann.zhuangyanying@huawei.com" , "zhoujingbin@huawei.com" , "guohongzhen@huawei.com" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/2] Virtio-net PMD Extension to work on host. 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: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 02:35:40 -0000 On 2015/11/20 11:00, Xie, Huawei wrote: > On 11/20/2015 2:16 AM, Rich Lane wrote: >> What's the reason for using qemu as a middleman? Couldn't the new PMD >> itself open /dev/vhost-net or the vhost-user socket and send the commands >> to set up virtqueues? That was the approach taken by Jianfeng's earlier RFC. > Rich: > Our initial POC also has a device simulation layer, but it is linked > with the DPDK driver as a library. > As i created that device simulation based on lkvm, and it takes too much > effort to rewrite it from scratch, so we decide to release a simple > version without device simulation first. > Without device simulation, The PMD is pretty simple, standalone, no > dependency to qtest process. > With device simulation, we could easily implement other virtio device in > DPDK easily, like virtio-crypt. Hi Rich and Xie, Probably, how to prepare virtio-net device is the difference between Jianfeng's RFC and our RFC. The reason why I choose this approach is below. 1. Ease of maintenance If we have our virtio-net device, we need to spend time to maintain it. And QEMU virtio-net code is more tested by more virtio-net drivers and more users. As a result, it should have less bugs. Also, If we uses QEMU virtio-net code, we only need to maintain QTest related implementation. Anyway, QTest is very stable. Probably we have bugs first, but later, we don't need to maintain it so much. 2. Extendability The virtio-net and vhost specification will be extended in the future. If we have own implementation, we need to maintain more codes. > Maybe anyway we provide the simple implementation option, for customers > who don't like the extra complexity to launch a secondary process in > their container. > [...] > > For example, for the user who is OK to invoke 2 processes in same container, just prepare shell script that invokes QTest process and vhost-user backend process will be enough. For the users who doesn't want to invoke 2 processes in one container, anyway they use some kind of orchestration tool, so invoking one more process/container is not difficult. I guess the invoking and connecting multiple processes over containers may not be something special for container users. (like deploying load balancer, web server and DB) Tetsuya