Hi Prashant, The problem is that my patch has to be applied to ixgbe PF driver as well. I have no idea how to make it happen. So even DPDK accepts my patch, user won't benefit from it unless he patched ixgbe PF by himself.
I also hate the fact that SRIOV cannot get more queues to VF. But there's a way out: to assign more than one VF to guest. thx & rgds, -ql On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Prashant Upadhyaya <prashant.upadhyaya at aricent.com> wrote: > Hi Qinglai, > > I would say that SRIOV is 'useless' if the VF gets only one queue. > At the heart of performance is to use one queue per core so that the the tx > and rx remain lockless. Locks 'destroy' performance. > So with one queue, if we want to remain lockless, that automatically means > that the usecase is restricted to one core, ergo useless for any usecase > worth its salt. > > It was courtesy your mail that I 'discovered' that DPDK has such a > limitation. > > So I am all for this patch to go in DPDK. Good luck ! > > Regards > -Prashant > > > -----Original Message----- > From: jigsaw [mailto:jigsaw at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:14 PM > To: Prashant Upadhyaya > Cc: Thomas Monjalon; dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] 82599 SR-IOV with passthrough > > Hi Prashant, > > I patched both Intel ixgbe PF driver and DPDK 1.5 VF driver, so that DPDK > gets 4 queues in one VF. It works fine with all 4 Tx queues. The only trick > is to set proper mac address for all outgoing packets, which must be the same > mac as you set to the VF. This trick is described in the release note of DPDK. > > I wonder whether it makes sense to push this patch to DPDK. Any comments? > > thx & > rgds, > -ql > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Prashant Upadhyaya <prashant.upadhyaya at > aricent.com> wrote: >> Hi Qinglai, >> >> Why are you using the kernel driver at all. >> Use the DPDK driver to control the PF on the host. The guest would >> communicate with the PF on host using mailbox as usual. >> Then the changes will be limited to DPDK, isn't it ? >> >> Regards >> -Prashant >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of jigsaw >> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 6:51 PM >> To: Thomas Monjalon >> Cc: dev at dpdk.org >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] 82599 SR-IOV with passthrough >> >> Hi Thomas, >> >> Thanks for reply. >> >> The kernel has older version of PF than the one released on sf.net. So I'm >> checking the sf.net release. >> If the change is limited in DPDK then it is controllable. But now it affects >> Intel's PF driver, I don't even know how to push the feature to Intel. The >> driver on sf.net is a read-only repository, isn't it? It would be painful to >> maintain another branch of 10G PF driver. >> Could Intel give some advice or hints here? >> >> thx & >> rgds, >> -Qinglai >> >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at >> 6wind.com> wrote: >>> 16/10/2013 14:18, jigsaw : >>>> Therefore, to add support for multiple queues per VF, we have to at >>>> least fix the PF driver, then add support in DPDK's VF driver. >>> >>> You're right, Linux PF driver have to be updated to properly manage >>> multiple queues per VF. Then the guest can be tested with DPDK or >>> with Linux driver (ixgbe_vf). >>> >>> Note that there are 2 versions of Linux driver for ixgbe: kernel.org >>> and sourceforge.net (supporting many kernel versions). >>> >>> -- >>> Thomas >> >> >> >> >> ====================================================================== >> ========= Please refer to >> http://www.aricent.com/legal/email_disclaimer.html >> for important disclosures regarding this electronic communication. >> ====================================================================== >> ========= > > > > > =============================================================================== > Please refer to http://www.aricent.com/legal/email_disclaimer.html > for important disclosures regarding this electronic communication. > ===============================================================================
