Tim,
cc-ing Paolo and qemu-devel@ again in order to get their take on it.
Did you make any progress in Qemu/KVM community?
We need to be sync'ed up with them to be sure we share the same goal.
I want also to avoid using a solution which doesn't fit with their plan.
Remember that we already had this problem with ivshmem which was
planned to be dropped.
Unfortunately, I have not yet received any feedback:
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2014-11/msg01103.html
Just to add to what Alan said above, this capability does not exist in qemu at
the moment, and based on there having been no feedback on the qemu mailing list
so far, I think it's reasonable to assume that it will not be implemented in
the immediate future. The VM Power Management feature has also been designed to
allow easy migration to a qemu-based solution when this is supported in future.
Therefore, I'd be in favour of accepting this feature into DPDK now.
It's true that the implementation is a work-around, but there have been similar
cases in DPDK in the past. One recent example that comes to mind is userspace
vhost. The original implementation could also be considered a work-around, but
it met the needs of many in the community. Now, with support for vhost-user in
qemu 2.1, that implementation is being improved. I'd see VM Power Management
following a similar path when this capability is supported in qemu.
Best regards,
Vincent
