13/01/2021 19:17, Igor Ryzhov: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 8:10 PM Stephen Hemminger < > step...@networkplumber.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021, 9:06 AM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > As discussed today in the techboard meeting, KNI has probably > > > better alternatives today without using an out-of-tree module. > > > Virtio-user is a good candidate to replace KNI. > > > What is the performance of TAP? > > > Is there a way to leverage af_packet, af_xdp, or even pcap interfaces? > > > > Last time I tried. > > Virtio user was as fast as KNI and consumed less cpu. Was seeing 10mpps > > Tap was much slower. Like 1mpps. > > Performance is not the only question. The advantage of KNI we are currently > using is > the ability to control the DPDK interfaces by the kernel. > For example, to implement bonding in the DPDK application, it is possible > to create KNI > pair for each physical interface, create a bond interface in Linux over > those KNI interfaces > and just pass LACP packets between the app and the kernel. The kernel > itself will control > MACs, MTU, etc. of underlying interfaces. AFAIK it's not possible with > virtio-user or tap. > Am I wrong?
I see at least 2 alternatives for bonding with kernel management: - mlx5 bonding - af_xdp interface for most of NICs