> -----Original Message----- > From: Paolo Bonzini [mailto:pbonz...@redhat.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 7:20 PM > To: Gonglei (Arei); qemu-devel@nongnu.org > Cc: m...@redhat.com; Huangweidong (C); stefa...@redhat.com; Zhoujian > (jay); pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com; longpeng; xin.z...@intel.com; > roy.fan.zh...@intel.com > Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] cryptodev-vhost-user: add crypto session handler > > On 28/11/2017 12:06, Gonglei (Arei) wrote: > >>> You mean we can share control virtqueue to DPDK as well? Like data > queues? > >> I don't know :) but why not? > >> > > Current there are two main reasons for this design: > > > > 1) we should use another cpu to polling the control virtqueue, which is > expensive. > > IIRC DPDK also supports interrupt mode, doesn't it? Is it possible to > do interrupt mode for some virtqueues and poll mode for others? >
The intel guy Tan (Ccing) said to me: " Interrupt mode for vhost-user is still not supported in current implementation. But we are evaluating the necessity now. And yes, the mode (polling or interrupt) can be different for different queues." > > 2) we should copy the logic of parsing control message to DPDK, which break > > current layered architecture . > > But isn't it already a layering violation that you're adding *some* > control messages to the vhost-user protocol? I am not sure why only > these two are necessary. > Sorry, but I don't think this is layering violation, just like "vhost_net_set_mtu" for vhost-net and "vhost_vsock_set_guest_cid_op" for vhost_vsock. They're all device-specific messages. Aren't they? Thanks, -Gonglei > Paolo > > > I'm not sure if there are any other hidden issues for future scalability, > > such as > > using Qemu to manage some control messages, avoiding D-Dos attack etc. > > > > Thanks, > > -Gonglei
