> On Mar 15, 2017, at 10:02 PM, Vincent JARDIN <vincent.jar...@6wind.com> wrote: > > Le 15/03/2017 à 05:10, O'Driscoll, Tim a écrit : >>> so, still an nack because: >>> - no performance data of avp vs virtio, >> I don't think it should be a requirement for Allain to provide performance >> data in order to justify getting this accepted into DPDK. Keith pointed out >> in a previous comment on this patch set that even if performance is the same >> as virtio, there might still be other reasons why people would want to use >> it. >> >>> - 2013 is gone, >>> - it unfocuses from virtio. > > Tim, > > you get it wrong, it IS the major point: if AVP is good in performance, then > an alternative to virtio is needed. > > Please, stop turning around the topic, and send facts/numbers that > demonstrate that there is a value in having alternative to virtio. Currently, > the only argument is a code developed in 2013 needs to be upstreamed because > vhost-user was not available in 2013.
I am sorry Vincent, but no one else provided performance data on any of the PMDs I did not have to provide performance data on TAP compared to AF_PACKET. Then why would you need to require performance data on this PMD, just because it uses something similar to what we have in some other PMDs is not a reason. The core code of DPKD is not PMDs is very important part, but they are just drivers for data I/O and DPDK provides the framework to run these drivers. Tim is not turning around the topic here, only pointing out the real questions and statements on this topic. > > Best regards, > Vincent Regards, Keith
