From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw0-f177.google.com (mail-yw0-f177.google.com [209.85.161.177]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9FA11396 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 09:52:50 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-yw0-f177.google.com with SMTP id v76so27033625ywg.0 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 01:52:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dgTRecDo/+znh/QmwvDOGEA8lBaXYQZAPuSu7cZ/jPs=; b=eQopWnNkKhWaGA002LeJyFsgnKF52NK8xkjsaDm1lzpl1YxmK0cy3Xil7hHg+vnX5D HqySXhOdbewgAES2lOqRPg2tFFwM+ZNDswQL/aqhvNHXHpo1tEQL/uI1NY1W+DmSF4RV Vt11l2LFVDe8kyEK2B7kXW28LVIpmLNZMfG40= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dgTRecDo/+znh/QmwvDOGEA8lBaXYQZAPuSu7cZ/jPs=; b=rbRSIoRWypTqvFKKncX8SGnXpoDTSley1r7C5yc0m7pKJMg4VDcKJslIsPhMaOeTmk lhxbOXY/FH4KWYHGfwfPC20kXdSS/n1cF0euCEvRib32UnRtY6pvHLdcEbMoRpfwFgeC M5S0wY4Wl17wN3ePj2evf0hKDBvxlaM2kVKoLgjqkqZ1IIFDCH4iaywys4oH3+RWo11b DZiaPJ6j36ufVwj85OhRLIO9MEWDI+ZNtJ6b+lIuKc9mZv9TO3XppGCIcTf9ddS5V0HX f+QWf5ZnrmKOB0shpDOeCANOQdEzi1sYrwWpZ/vt013HT0z2zorwtCDEn4TbJhB/GjBC BZug== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1EQ6cSwV6eyK36sD9DnlER7Nk/M5uyqxuVpWHqLTQHyKvsIxC90POwMgHc9mnZuQmMrF/x/8pQrGUSGtNd X-Received: by 10.129.183.12 with SMTP id v12mr5859238ywh.257.1489654369685; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 01:52:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.55.216 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 01:52:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA7232038D@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1488414008-162839-1-git-send-email-allain.legacy@windriver.com> <4b3a0ff4-3d19-8e4b-0cbf-2a08e6433285@6wind.com> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA7231E927@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <78399437.9zD9LecKHj@xps13> <516e9e6b-0a37-4b3c-ee06-119b317da1fc@6wind.com> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA7232038D@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> From: Francois Ozog Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 09:52:49 +0100 Message-ID: To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" Cc: Vincent JARDIN , Thomas Monjalon , "Legacy, Allain (Wind River)" , "Yigit, Ferruh" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Jolliffe, Ian (Wind River)" , "Wiles, Keith" , "techboard@dpdk.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 00/17] Wind River Systems AVP PMD vs virtio? X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 08:52:50 -0000 Hi, Virtio is special in many ways: - it is a multi-vendor supported specification - it is a multi-vendor opensource implementation in guest OSes (Windows, Linux, FreeBSD...) - it is a multi-vendor, opensource implementation in hypervisors So, the great benefit of virtio is that with a SINGLE device driver in a VM, applications are guaranteed to work in all situations (all hypervisors, all backends). The real issue I see with AVP is that it would bring uncertainty in virtual environments, breaking the "peace" of mind that virtio brings. does the hypervisor supports this vnic? does the virtual switch support the vnic? Having a single multi-vendor supported specification and implementations foster creativity, so I wouldn't be surprised to see native virtio support from Smart NICs in a very near future! *** Bottom line, if there are good ideas in AVP (performance, security...), I would rather push them to virtio. *** Lastly, physical PMDs have been accepted based on implicit existence of upstream drivers (valid for virtio and vmxnet3). So as a bare minimum requirement, I would ask for Qemu, OVS and Linux upstream AVP support. Is it the case? Cordially, Fran=C3=A7ois-Fr=C3=A9d=C3=A9ric On 16 March 2017 at 04:18, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote: >> From: Vincent JARDIN [mailto:vincent.jardin@6wind.com] >> >> Le 15/03/2017 =C3=A0 11:55, Thomas Monjalon a =C3=A9crit : >> >> I'd suggest that this is a good topic for the next Tech Board >> meeting. >> > I agree Tim. >> > CC'ing techboard to add this item to the agenda of the next meeting. >> >> Frankly, I disagree, it is missing some discussions on the list. > > I think the discussion on the mailing list is at an impasse and it won't = be resolved there. I think the Tech Board needs to consider several issues: > - What are the requirements for a new PMD to be accepted? For example, yo= u're asking for performance data in this case, when this hasn't been a requ= irement for other PMDs. > - Should there be different requirements for PMDs for virtual devices ver= sus physical devices? > - Based on these criteria, should the AVP PMD be accepted or not? --=20 Fran=C3=A7ois-Fr=C3=A9d=C3=A9ric Ozog | Director Linaro Networking Group T: +33.67221.6485 francois.ozog@linaro.org | Skype: ffozog