From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pepedocs@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-la0-x235.google.com (mail-la0-x235.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::235])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A2495911
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 00:14:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-la0-f53.google.com with SMTP id mc6so2947763lab.40
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:15:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
 :content-type; bh=re7kPYYxCmB73OS2RPRNEnxCD2fn71+W8qVw7Z24cFo=;
 b=YUHr5bN8cgFDkKFrwJ9zMgWyCAFmXAo52EvjMr8Uixm1uLB4lv5OKi4rrz4G4jFRAH
 KRL8OfqWx+fDsEoUgNWy0IE0Ii3/TbGdGVGKCQniGMEUm7rOA3tBBbXO18ThvqgaFfJu
 27SA4+glw1E92wvHSK+YMrKv/AOxHoHMvZBWKD4wROLUAelz+QTMjIQ/bbeh5V090Fop
 uAV42DOfLLsPGdioXm5tnxrVhzGwAQJEfGLBSezUr6o/USRIdUXlLkqGYHAo2dkuYzSM
 Zpo+L5zsE1Y9ncKqwUAj/LnFGvKE4kxWBmWW65x2EsDHAjVr7mmHnSHJ5m4cMjL/wqGI
 zMEg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.183.194 with SMTP id eo2mr33857lac.81.1386717353192;
 Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:15:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.59.164 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:15:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ5bv6EZ2tgMGjha+S=gxPw3Lxs2bkOy07oyLY_3zK03-wrHCw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJ5bv6EZ2tgMGjha+S=gxPw3Lxs2bkOy07oyLY_3zK03-wrHCw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 07:15:53 +0800
Message-ID: <CAJ5bv6E+5uhiM5orZ0gZa4ODhgrppRume23otHKGo3BDtwJ8Zg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jose Gavine Cueto <pepedocs@gmail.com>
To: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] kni vs. pmd
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 23:14:49 -0000

Additional question:

Apart from the possible fact that kni performs zero-copy in the driver
layer, does this also apply on the sockets layer, or does the sockets
operations (+ sys calls) are not avoided ?  This is assuming that the
application uses regular sockets to read/write to knis.

Cheers,
Pepe


On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:12 AM, Jose Gavine Cueto <pepedocs@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but in a high-level perspective I see that kni is
> providing an option for applications to use their regular interfaces (e.g.
> sockets) and abstracts the usage of pmds.
>
> If this is somehow correct, are there any differences with regard to
> performance benefits that can be brought between directly using pmd apis
> and kni ?
>
> I see that kni is easier to use, however at first (no code inspection)
> look, it interfaces with the kernel which might have introduced some
> overhead.
>
> Cheers,
> Pepe
>
>
> --
> To stop learning is like to stop loving.
>



-- 
To stop learning is like to stop loving.