On 28.05.2015 05:36, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 05/28/2015 11:21 AM, Jason Wang wrote: >> >> On 05/27/2015 07:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 04:45:34PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 05/27/2015 02:26 PM, Pankaj Gupta wrote: >>>>>>> Ping. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can I get any suggestions on this patch. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> Pankaj >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> vhostforce was added to enable vhost when >>>>>>>>> guest don't have MSI-X support. >>>>>>>>> Now, we have scenarios like DPDK in Guest which dont use >>>>>>>>> interrupts and still use vhost. Also, performance of guests >>>>>>>>> without MSI-X support is getting less popular. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Its OK to remove this extra option and enable vhost >>>>>>>>> on the basis of vhost=ON/OFF. >>>>>>>>> Done basic testing with vhost on/off for latest guests >>>>>>>>> and old guests(non-msix). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Gupta <pagu...@redhat.com> >>>>> Looks good. Two questions: >>>>> >>>>> - Did libvirt use this? if not, we may want to drop vhostfore option >>>>> completely. >>> Yes, it did. >>> >> For vhost-user, vhostforce is mandatory. But how about tap? Looks like >> it was not used, and I could not even find any option in >> http://libvirt.org/formatdomain.html. >> > > CC Michal for the answer. >
No, vhostforce is not used by libvirt at all. Which brings up interesting question: for vhost-user libvirt constructs merely the follwing cmd line: -chardev socket,id=charnet0,path=/tmp/vhost0.sock,server \ -netdev type=vhost-user,id=hostnet0,chardev=charnet0 \ How does vhostforce fit in? I suppose the cmd line is working even without libvirt passing vhostforce. Should it do so? Michal
