From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA25F38EB for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 06:57:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2014 22:01:47 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,408,1406617200"; d="scan'208";a="593824613" Received: from fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.205]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2014 22:01:46 -0700 Received: from shsmsx104.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.70) by fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.205) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 22:01:46 -0700 Received: from shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.246]) by SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.17]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 13:01:43 +0800 From: "Ouyang, Changchun" To: Tetsuya.Mukawa , "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] lib/librte_vhost: qemu vhost-user support into DPDK vhost library Thread-Index: Ac/BHV0IrPGOjNirTxKCPui4m3t8YwAAB/VwAByXNlD//7vygP//dVCw Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:01:42 +0000 Message-ID: References: <53FD60FD.5090903@igel.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <53FD60FD.5090903@igel.co.jp> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 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 04:57:46 -0000 Hi Tetsuya Thanks for your response. 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 crea= tion and destroy stage. 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 i= nto > DPDK vhost library >=20 >=20 > (2014/08/27 9:43), Ouyang, Changchun wrote: > > Do we have performance comparison between both implementation? > Hi Changchun, >=20 > 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 exis= ting > vhost implementation and a vhost-user implementation will shares or uses > same code to access virt queues. So I guess the performance will be almos= t > same. >=20 > Thanks, > Tetsuya >=20 >=20 > > 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