On 2021/05/11 16:27, Jim Thompson wrote: > > > On May 11, 2021, at 7:04 AM, Mark Johnston <ma...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 12:43:10PM +0000, Francois ten Krooden wrote: > >> On Monday, 10 May 2021 16:10 Konstantin Belousov wrote: > >> > >> > >>> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 11:08:18AM +0000, Francois ten Krooden > wrote: > >>>> 3. What are suitable alternatives for reading information from > >>>> procfs and > >>> sysfs on FreeBSD? > >>> Understand what information is obtained, then what for is it > >>> actually used, then match it against equivalent FreeBSD approach, > >>> then gather the required information. > >> > >> Thank you. This was basically what we suspected. > >> One of the ones we are unsure about is what the equivalent of > /proc/self/pagemap on Linux would be. > >> The one idea we had is using procstat_getvmmap from libprocstat, but > haven't finished investigating yet. > > > > I believe DPDK's libeal uses /proc/pagemap to look up the physical > > address of large page mappings. Assuming you want to do the same > > thing, there is the MEM_EXTRACT_PADDR /dev/mem ioctl. It was added > > specifically for DPDK. See the mem(4) man page for details on its > > usage. > > Upthread mentioned Netgate (we do pfSense) as being possibly involved in > a port of VPP to FreeBSD. We do have some interest, and I had once handed > this to a contractor, but not much progress was made, and we had our hands > full with pfSense and our VPP-based product (tnsr). VPP has been discussed > on freebsd-net before. > > You and your team have made it much farther. > > I’d spoken to the VPP ‘core team’ about the sustainability of a port of VPP to > FreeBSD, and they didn’t say ’No’. The lead VPP person at Cisco used to be a > FreeBSD src committer, and he basically said, “Patches welcome”. > Someone will probably want to bring CSIT along to help prevent regressions > on FreeBSD, but that team also seemed open when I checked. > > IMO, netmap seems a better approach on FreeBSD, as you’ll eventually want > something like the ‘router plugin’ to be able to communicate between the > kernel and VPP, obtain FIBs, etc. > We’ve been strong proponents of (and a main contributor to) the ‘linux-cp” > plugin, (a better version of the router plugin, partially upstreamed to VPP), > but it’s based on netlink, and is has more linux-isms than the main body of > VPP. Netmap has a very nice architecture for building something similar, > where packets can be directly sent to and received from the host rings by > VPP, and these host rings are associated with an interface ring. Netmap-fwd > uses this to good effect. > > Netmap is slightly slower in maximum PPS than DPDK, but for your use case > (IPsec), you won't see a difference (assuming some things when I say this.) > > Jim
Thank you for the feedback Jim. It is appreciated. Will have a look. I might have some questions about who to contact when we reach a point where we think it can be upstreamed to VPP. Regards Francois Important Notice: This e-mail and its contents are subject to the Nanoteq (Pty) Ltd e-mail legal notice available at: http://www.nanoteq.com/AboutUs/EmailDisclaimer.aspx _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
