> > On 24.10.2021., at 18:08, Mrityunjay Kumar <kumarn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Well, almost VPP experts/users are familiar about dpdk.
I don’t understand why somebody needs to be familiar with DPDK to use memif. Actually we see more and more people looking to use VPP without DPDK so we have significant amount of native drivers which allows people to turn DPDK plugin and reduce weight it comes with. One of them is memif. > > But dollor price question, which one is stable one and less effort to marry > with VPP over shared memory, VPP memif implementation is reference implementation of protocol. DPDK implementation was just a port to enable people who have applications already built on top of dpdk framework to connect to VPP. AFAIK we never did serious optimizations to that code. I was not checking recently if somebody else did any improvements there… Using DPDK PMD in VPP is also bad idea due to high cost of translation between VPP and DPDK data structures. It is not only memif pmd, VPP with any other DPDK PMD is significantly slower than VPP with native driver. Also use of DPDK PMDs in VPP lack dynamic interface creation… Not to mention how nice is to get a rid of DPDK EAL… > > I suggest, VPP user have both option open, let them decide, which one is > better and convenient for them. I disagree as use of memif DPDK PMD in VPP brings zero value, and comes with lot of weight including significant performance penalty, less flexibility and high cost of mandatory use of EAL. — Damjan > > > > >> On Sun, 24 Oct, 2021, 4:28 pm Damjan Marion, <dmar...@me.com> wrote: >> >> And what is the benefit of doing that? >> >> — >> Damjan >> >> >> >>> On 24.10.2021., at 11:24, Mrityunjay Kumar <kumarn...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Well, I can dump my opinion regarding this. we can disable memif plugin >>> and same feature can be achieved using dpdk EAL option. For details >>> please refer bellow link. >>> >>> https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/nics/memif.html >>> >>> >>> >>> This required small patch by adding a new statrup.conf section under dpdk { >>> --vdev=net_memif0, net_memif1, … } , to handle this we need to translate >>> this in dpdk plugin to inject EAL in rte_eal_init. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Sun, 24 Oct, 2021, 5:16 am Damjan Marion, <dmar...@me.com> wrote: >>>> What is your suggestion? Which part of the plugin is wrongly written? >>>> >>>> — >>>> Damjan >>>> >>>>>> On 24.10.2021., at 00:16, Mrityunjay Kumar <kumarn...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Damjan, >>>>> >>>>> I think you are trying to explain one copy always occurs in memif >>>>> communication, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Currently VPP memif plugin is wrongly/misleadingly written and it also >>>>> misguiding to VPP users. >>>>> >>>>> When I look this code long back, it also misleading me. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 23 Oct, 2021, 11:52 pm Damjan Marion via lists.fd.io, >>>>>> <dmarion=me....@lists.fd.io> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Please note that “zero copy memif” doesn’t exist. >>>>>> >>>>>> Long time ago I possibly wrongly/misleadingly added VPP feature with >>>>>> name “zero-copy slave”. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is vpp internal feature which avoids 2nd memcopy by exposing VPP >>>>>> (slave only) buffers directly to master. >>>>>> In such scenario still one memcpy exists…. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> — >>>>>> Damjan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > On 22.10.2021., at 13:19, Satya Murthy <satyamurthy1...@gmail.com> >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Thanks MJ for the quick reply. >>>>>> > Will try this and check. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > -- >>>>>> > Thanks & Regards, >>>>>> > Murthy >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#20373): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/20373 Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/86509719/21656 Group Owner: vpp-dev+ow...@lists.fd.io Unsubscribe: https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
