Tim, cc-ing Paolo and qemu-devel@ again in order to get their take on it.
>>> 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. >>> >> Unfortunately, I have not yet received any feedback: >> http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2014-11/msg01103.html > > Just to add to what Alan said above, this capability does not exist in qemu > at the moment, and based on there having been no feedback on the qemu mailing > list so far, I think it's reasonable to assume that it will not be > implemented in the immediate future. The VM Power Management feature has also > been designed to allow easy migration to a qemu-based solution when this is > supported in future. Therefore, I'd be in favour of accepting this feature > into DPDK now. > > It's true that the implementation is a work-around, but there have been > similar cases in DPDK in the past. One recent example that comes to mind is > userspace vhost. The original implementation could also be considered a > work-around, but it met the needs of many in the community. Now, with support > for vhost-user in qemu 2.1, that implementation is being improved. I'd see VM > Power Management following a similar path when this capability is supported > in qemu. Best regards, Vincent
