[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 00/17] Wind River Systems AVP PMD vs virtio?

Francois Ozog francois.ozog at linaro.org
Thu Mar 16 09:52:49 CET 2017


Hi,

Virtio is special in many ways:
- it is a  multi-vendor supported specification
- it is a multi-vendor opensource implementation in guest OSes
(Windows, Linux, FreeBSD...)
- it is a multi-vendor, opensource implementation in hypervisors


So, the great benefit of virtio is that with a SINGLE device driver in
a VM, applications are guaranteed to work in all situations (all
hypervisors, all backends). The real issue I see with AVP is that it
would bring uncertainty in virtual environments, breaking the "peace"
of mind that virtio brings. does the hypervisor supports this vnic?
does the virtual switch support the vnic?
Having a single multi-vendor supported specification and
implementations foster creativity, so I wouldn't be surprised to see
native virtio support from Smart NICs in a very near future!

*** Bottom line, if there are good ideas in AVP (performance,
security...), I would rather push them to virtio. ***


Lastly, physical PMDs have been accepted based on implicit existence
of upstream drivers (valid for virtio and vmxnet3). So as a bare
minimum requirement, I would ask for Qemu, OVS and Linux upstream AVP
support. Is it the case?

Cordially,

François-Frédéric


On 16 March 2017 at 04:18, O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll at intel.com> wrote:
>> From: Vincent JARDIN [mailto:vincent.jardin at 6wind.com]
>>
>> Le 15/03/2017 à 11:55, Thomas Monjalon a écrit :
>> >> I'd suggest that this is a good topic for the next Tech Board
>> meeting.
>> > I agree Tim.
>> > CC'ing techboard to add this item to the agenda of the next meeting.
>>
>> Frankly, I disagree, it is missing some discussions on the list.
>
> I think the discussion on the mailing list is at an impasse and it won't be resolved there. I think the Tech Board needs to consider several issues:
> - What are the requirements for a new PMD to be accepted? For example, you're asking for performance data in this case, when this hasn't been a requirement for other PMDs.
> - Should there be different requirements for PMDs for virtual devices versus physical devices?
> - Based on these criteria, should the AVP PMD be accepted or not?



-- 
François-Frédéric Ozog | Director Linaro Networking Group
T: +33.67221.6485
francois.ozog at linaro.org | Skype: ffozog


More information about the dev mailing list