On 28/11/2017 12:06, Gonglei (Arei) wrote: >>> You mean we can share control virtqueue to DPDK as well? Like data queues? >> I don't know :) but why not? >> > Current there are two main reasons for this design: > > 1) we should use another cpu to polling the control virtqueue, which is > expensive.
IIRC DPDK also supports interrupt mode, doesn't it? Is it possible to do interrupt mode for some virtqueues and poll mode for others? > 2) we should copy the logic of parsing control message to DPDK, which break > current layered architecture . But isn't it already a layering violation that you're adding *some* control messages to the vhost-user protocol? I am not sure why only these two are necessary. Paolo > I'm not sure if there are any other hidden issues for future scalability, > such as > using Qemu to manage some control messages, avoiding D-Dos attack etc. > > Thanks, > -Gonglei
