[dpdk-dev] [RFC] Kernel Control Path (KCP)
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  the Kernel Control Path (KCP)
>>> with some updates .
>>> 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
>>> 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.
>>> 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
More information about the dev