[dpdk-dev] [RFC] lib/librte_vhost: qemu vhost-user support into DPDK vhost library

[Ouyang, Changchun]

> -----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