From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>
Subject: Re: A Question about the necessity of DPDK VF for
	Ethernet PMDs
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 11:30:11 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD+H991KfTXwLSu4fco9W26m8LPqnQaYAG5k5yY-SUBjMigDDQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHLOa7SnR+4hDzVPuEnTXPxCxurbqXGinP9jCk8XzjEWkiSEYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD+H992VV2hmkhi1D250+ucN2O4ZY6G5-phKuNMmSG1qekzuBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHLOa7RSXHGL8YpHXu5U1WOAh2uK0w9fnh8Eg_jB3dW5SdxKZg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: dev <dev@dpdk.org>
To: Rami Rosen <ramirose@gmail.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-it1-f176.google.com (mail-it1-f176.google.com
 [209.85.166.176]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FE715911
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon,  4 Feb 2019 12:30:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-it1-f176.google.com with SMTP id i145so20206305ita.4
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 04 Feb 2019 03:30:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAHLOa7RSXHGL8YpHXu5U1WOAh2uK0w9fnh8Eg_jB3dW5SdxKZg@mail.gmail.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 10:44 AM Rami Rosen <ramirose@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Alejandro,
>
> >Your concern is related to this thread
>
> Thanks for your reply, I was aware of this thread.
>
OK


> Still, I am not sure, in current kernels and currently available Ethernet
> DPDK PMDs about the answer to my queries (I don't think this mail thread
> gives info about it), like about what are the benefits of providing DPDK
> VFs,  is it mandatory in some use cases, and are there any advantage for
> using a DPDK PF/DPDK VF combination over using Kernel VF?
>
> That is an interesting discussion. I know there is some interest in this
case from OVS people, exactly for running an OVS instance inside a VM.
I can see other reasons:
   - when SRIOV is used by VMs, the slow path will always be faster (and
with lower latency) with DPDK.
   - When more VMs/containers than VFs, DPDK will allow to use SRIOV (for
higher priority VMs/containers) and vhost-user (for low-priority), and with
the low-priority being faster than through the kernel.
   - If SRIOV is not used by VMs, DPDK forwarding path using vhost-user
along with VF PMDs is faster than through the kernel.
   - Having the PF managed by user space could potentially mean faster VM
migration.
   - PF flow management, inserting/deleting flow rules, faster in user
space.


Regards,
>
> Rami Rosen
>
>
>