From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Tetsuya.Mukawa" Subject: Re: [RFC] lib/librte_vhost: qemu vhost-user support into DPDK vhost library Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 13:39:25 +0900 Message-ID: <53FD60FD.5090903@igel.co.jp> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Katsuya MATSUBARA , nakajima.yoshihiro-Zyj7fXuS5i5L9jVzuh4AOg@public.gmane.org, Hitoshi Masutani To: "Ouyang, Changchun" , "dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org" Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" (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-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Xie, Huawei > Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:06 PM > To: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.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