[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/6] Virtio-net PMD: QEMU QTest extension for container

Tetsuya Mukawa mukawa at igel.co.jp
Mon Jun 6 07:10:46 CEST 2016

Hi Yuanhan,

Sorry for late replying.

On 2016/06/03 13:17, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 06:30:18PM +0900, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
>> Hi Yuanhan,
>> On 2016/06/02 16:31, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
>>> But still, I'd ask do we really need 2 virtio for container solutions?
>> I appreciate your comments.
> No, I appreciate your effort for contributing to DPDK! vhost-pmd stuff
> is just brilliant!
>> Let me have time to discuss it with our team.
> I'm wondering could we have one solution only. IMO, the drawback of
> having two (quite different) solutions might outweighs the benefit
> it takes. Say, it might just confuse user.

I agree with this.
If we have 2 solutions, it would confuse the DPDK users.

> OTOH, I'm wondering could you adapt to Jianfeng's solution? If not,
> what's the missing parts, and could we fix it? I'm thinking having
> one unified solution will keep ours energy/focus on one thing, making
> it better and better! Having two just splits the energy; it also
> introduces extra burden for maintaining.

Of course, I adopt Jiangeng's solution basically.
Actually, his solution is almost similar I tried to implement at first.

I guess here is pros/cons of 2 solutions.

[Jianfeng's solution]
- Pros
Don't need to invoke QEMU process.
- Cons
If virtio-net specification is changed, we need to implement it by
ourselves. Also, LSC interrupt and control queue functions are not
supported yet.
I agree both functions may not be so important, and if we need it
we can implement them, but we need to pay energy to implement them.

[My solution]
- Pros
Basic principle of my implementation is not to reinvent the wheel.
We can use a virtio-net device of QEMU implementation, it means we don't
need to maintain virtio-net device by ourselves, and we can use all of
functions supported by QEMU virtio-net device.
- Cons
Need to invoke QEMU process.

Anyway, we can choose one of belows.
1. Take advantage of invoking less processes.
2. Take advantage of maintainability of virtio-net device.

Honestly, I'm OK if my solution is not merged.
Thus, it should be decided to let DPDK better.

What do you think?
Which is better for DPDK?


> 	--yliu

More information about the dev mailing list