[dpdk-dev] [RFC] lib/librte_vhost: qemu vhost-user support into DPDK vhost library
Hi Haifeng: Might be in the release after 1.8. > -Original Message- > From: Linhaifeng [mailto:haifeng.lin at huawei.com] > Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2014 1:28 PM > To: Xie, Huawei; dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] lib/librte_vhost: qemu vhost-user support > into DPDK vhost library > > when will publish ? > > On 2014/8/26 19:05, Xie, Huawei wrote: > > 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 > > > >
[dpdk-dev] [RFC] lib/librte_vhost: qemu vhost-user support into DPDK vhost library
when will publish ? On 2014/8/26 19:05, Xie, Huawei wrote: > 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 > >
[dpdk-dev] [RFC] lib/librte_vhost: qemu vhost-user support into DPDK vhost library
Hi Changchun, (2014/08/27 14:01), Ouyang, Changchun wrote: > 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. Yes, I agree. Also There may be the difference, if a virtio-net driver on a guest isn't poll mode like a virtio-net device driver in the kernel. In the case, existing vhost implementation uses the eventfd kernel module, and vhost-user implementation uses eventfd to kick the driver. So I guess there will be the difference. Anyway, about device creation and destruction, the difference will come from transmission speed between unix domain socket and CUSE. I am not sure which is faster. Thanks, Tetsuya > > 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
[dpdk-dev] [RFC] lib/librte_vhost: qemu vhost-user support into DPDK vhost library
> -Original Message- > From: Tetsuya.Mukawa [mailto:mukawa at igel.co.jp] > Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 1:28 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 > > Hi Changchun, > > (2014/08/27 14:01), Ouyang, Changchun wrote: > > 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. > Yes, I agree. Also There may be the difference, if a virtio-net driver on a > guest isn't poll mode like a virtio-net device driver in the kernel. In the > case, > existing vhost implementation uses the eventfd kernel module, and vhost- > user implementation uses eventfd to kick the driver. So I guess there will be > the difference. > > Anyway, about device creation and destruction, the difference will come > from transmission speed between unix domain socket and CUSE. I am not > sure which is faster. Yes, it doesn't matter which one is faster for virtio device creation and destroy, as it is not in data path. > Thanks, > Tetsuya > > > > > > 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
[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
