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 creation and destroy stage.
Regards, Changchun > -----Original Message----- > From: Tetsuya.Mukawa [mailto:mukawa at igel.co.jp] > Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:39 PM > To: Ouyang, Changchun; dev at dpdk.org > Cc: Xie, Huawei; Katsuya MATSUBARA; nakajima.yoshihiro at 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 at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Xie, Huawei > > Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:06 PM > > To: dev at 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