Hi Thomas, > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 4:06 PM > To: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Andrew Rybchenko > <arybche...@solarflare.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Iremonger, Bernard <bernard.iremon...@intel.com>; > Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com>; E. Scott Daniels > <dani...@research.att.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; Alex > Zelezniak <al...@att.com>; Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khapa...@broadcom.com>; > Doherty, Declan <declan.dohe...@intel.com> > Subject: [RFC] ethdev: configure SR-IOV VF from host > > In a virtual environment, the network controller may have to configure some > SR-IOV VF parameters for security reasons. > > When the PF (host port) is drived by DPDK (OVS-DPDK case), we face two > different cases: > - driver is bifurcated (Mellanox case), > so the VF can be configured via the kernel. > - driver is on top of UIO or VFIO, so DPDK API is required. > > This RFC proposes to use generic DPDK API for VF configuration. > The impacted functions are (can be extended): > > - rte_eth_dev_is_valid_port > - rte_eth_promiscuous_enable > - rte_eth_promiscuous_disable > - rte_eth_promiscuous_get > - rte_eth_allmulticast_enable > - rte_eth_allmulticast_disable > - rte_eth_allmulticast_get > - rte_eth_dev_set_mc_addr_list > - rte_eth_dev_default_mac_addr_set > - rte_eth_macaddr_get > - rte_eth_dev_mac_addr_add > - rte_eth_dev_mac_addr_remove > - rte_eth_dev_vlan_filter > - rte_eth_dev_get_mtu > - rte_eth_dev_set_mtu > > In order to target these functions to a VF (which has no port id in the host), > the higher bit of port id is reserved: > > #define RTE_ETH_VF_PORT_FLAG (1 << 15) > > This bit can be combined only with the port id of a representor. > The meaning is to target the VF connected with the representor port, instead > of the representor port itself. > > If a function is not expected to support VF configuration, it will return - > EINVAL, i.e. there is no code change. > If an API function (listed above) can support VF configuration, but the PMD > does not support it, then -ENOTSUP must be returned. > > As an example, this is the change required in rte_eth_dev_is_valid_port: > > int > rte_eth_dev_is_valid_port(uint16_t port_id) { > + uint32_t dev_flags; > + uint16_t vf_flag; > + > + vf_flag = port_id & RTE_ETH_VF_PORT_FLAG; > + port_id &= RTE_ETH_VF_PORT_FLAG - 1; /* remove VF flag */ > + > if (port_id >= RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS || > (rte_eth_devices[port_id].state == RTE_ETH_DEV_UNUSED)) > return 0; > - else > - return 1; > + > + dev_flags = rte_eth_dev_shared_data->data[port_id].dev_flags; > + if (vf_flag != 0 && (dev_flags & RTE_ETH_DEV_REPRESENTOR) == 0) > + return 0; /* VF flag has no meaning if not a representor > + */ > + > + return 1; > } > >
Some of the functions in the list above for example, rte_eth_dev_promiscuous_enable() use the dev_ops structure, is it intended to add more rte_eth_dev_* functions to the dev_ops structure? At present the ixgbe and i40e PMD's have sets of private functions for configuring SRIOV VF's from the DPDK PF, rte_pmd_ixgbe_* and rte_pmd_i40e_* functions (see rte_pmd_ixgbe.h and rte_pmd_i40e.h). At the time these functions were not allowed to be added to the dev_ops structure as there were so many of them. There was a proposal to add a dev_ctrl function to the dev_ops structure which would access the private functions. Maybe adding the dev_ctrl function should be considered again. Having two ways (through dev_ops and private PMD functions) to configure DPDK VF's from the DPDK PF will be confusing for developers. Regards, Bernard.
