Hi Thomas, > Hi Alan, > > Did you make any progress in Qemu/KVM community? > We need to be sync'ed up with them to be sure we share the same goal. > I want also to avoid using a solution which doesn't fit with their plan. > Remember that we already had this problem with ivshmem which was > planned to be dropped. > > Thanks > -- > Thomas > > > 2014-10-16 15:21, Carew, Alan: > > Hi Thomas, > > > > > > However with a DPDK solution it would be possible to re-use the > message bus > > > > to pass information like device stats, application state, D-state > > > > requests > > > > etc. to the host and allow for management layer(e.g. OpenStack) to > make > > > > informed decisions. > > > > > > I think that management informations should be transmitted in a > management > > > channel. Such solution should exist in OpenStack. > > > > Perhaps it does, but this solution is not exclusive to OpenStack and just a > potential use case. > > > > > > > > > Also, the scope of adding power management to qemu/KVM would be > huge; > > > > while the easier path is not always the best and the problem of power > > > > management in VMs is both a DPDK problem (given that librte_power > only > > > > worked on the host) and a general virtualization problem that would be > > > > better solved by those with direct knowledge of Qemu/KVM > architecture > > > > and influence on the direction of the Qemu project. > > > > > > Being a huge effort is not an argument. > > > > I agree completely and was implied by what followed the conjunction. > > > > > Please check with Qemu community, they'll welcome it. > > > > > > > As it stands, the host backend is simply an example application that can > > > > be replaced by a VMM or Orchestration layer, by using Virtio-Serial it > has > > > > obvious leanings to Qemu, but even this could be easily swapped out > for > > > > XenBus, IVSHMEM, IP etc. > > > > > > > > If power management is to be eventually supported by Hypervisors > directly > > > > then we could also enable to option to switch to that environment, > currently > > > > the librte_power implementations (VM or Host) can be selected > dynamically > > > > (environment auto-detection) or explicitly via rte_power_set_env(), > adding > > > > an arbitrary number of environments is relatively easy. > > > > > > Yes, you are adding a new layer to workaround hypervisor lacks. And this > layer > > > will handle native support when it will exist. But if you implement native > > > support now, we don't need this extra layer. > > > > Indeed, but we have a solution implemented now and yes it is a > workaround, that is until Hypervisors support such functionality. It is > possible > that whatever solutions for power management present themselves in the > future may require workarounds also, us-vhost is an example of such a > workaround introduced to DPDK. > > > > > > > > > I hope this helps to clarify the approach. > > > > > > Thanks for your explanation. > > > > Thanks for the feedback. > > > > > > > > -- > > > Thomas > > > > Alan.
Unfortunately, I have not yet received any feedback: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2014-11/msg01103.html Alan.