[dpdk-dev] [RFC] Kernel Control Path (KCP)

Ferruh Yigit ferruh.yigit at intel.com
Tue Jun 20 14:33:05 CEST 2017


On 6/16/2017 4:54 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 5/28/2017 5:55 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>>
>>> On May 26, 2017, at 11:52 AM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> We are looking for re-sending [1] the Kernel Control Path (KCP)
>>> with some updates [2].
>>>
>>> Mainly this is an usability improvement for DPDK.
>>>
>>> And a quick reminder about what KCP is:
>>>
>>> "KCP is Linux virtual network interface that can control DPDK ports".
>>>
>>> So DPDK interfaces, somehow will be visible and it will be possible to
>>> use common Linux tools on DPDK interfaces.
>>>
>>> This work can be done in multiple steps:
>>>
>>> - At first step virtual interfaces can be read-only, and can be used
>>>  to get stats / information from DPDK ports.
>>>
>>> - Second step can be controlling the DPDK interfaces in a common way
>>>  like Linux interfaces.
>>>
>>> It is good to remind that KCP is only for control path, and no data
>>> traffic will be available on those interfaces, meaning not able to use
>>> tcpdump or similar tools on those interfaces.
>>>
>>> I would like to hear about comments, requirements and objection about
>>> the idea?
>>>
>>> Also the name "Kernel Control Path" can be too broad, I am open to a
>>> name change, any comments on naming is welcome.
>>
>> Using kernel in the name is not very useful, but netlink is the real part that makes sense.
>>
>> How about one of these:
>> - DNI = DPDK Netlink Interface
>> - DNC = DPDK Netlink Control
>> - NCI = Netlink Control Interface
>>
>> Being able to control DPDK interfaces via Netlink is one of the customer needs I have heard of late.
> 
> My concern is this name my create a miss understanding that DPDK is
> providing a netlink interface for other applications that they can use
> to control DPDK application / interfaces.
> 
> Here although netlink sockets used to communicate between kernel and
> userspace, DPDK application connects to the netlink socket provided by
> kernel module, and DPDK interfaces controlled using virtual Linux
> network interfaces, independent from what kind of communication method
> used between kernel and userspace.

what do you thinks about "Userspace Network Control Interface (UNCI)" ? [*]

I am for this one, if there is no objection.


[*]
Suggested by Tim O'Driscoll

> 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-March/035139.html
>>>
>>> [2]
>>> Updates planned to the latest version sent:
>>> - Create control interfaces without requiring an API call from user
>>>  application, this will let DPDK applications have this support
>>>  without any modification.
>>> - Default enabled interfaces will be read-only.
>>> - Possible rename.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> ferruh
>>>
>>>
>>> Ferruh Yigit (4):
>>>  ethtool: move from sample folder to lib folder
>>>  kcp: add kernel control path kernel module
>>>  rte_ctrl_if: add control interface library
>>>  ethdev: add control interface support
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 2.9.3
>>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Keith
>>
> 



More information about the dev mailing list