-----Original Message-----
From: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Ilya Maximets
Sent: Monday, November 4, 2019 12:28 PM
To: Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com>; Ilya Maximets
<i.maxim...@ovn.org>; Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com>; Andrew
Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>; Ferruh Yigit
<ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Stephen Hemminger
<step...@networkplumber.org>; Roni Bar Yanai <ron...@mellanox.com>;
Rony Efraim <ro...@mellanox.com>; declan.dohe...@intel.com;
bernard.iremon...@intel.com; ajit.khapa...@broadcom.com; Ananyev,
Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/3] ethdev: configure SR-IOV VF from
host
On 03.11.2019 7:48, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
Friday, November 1, 2019 11:33 AM, Ilya Maximets:
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/3] ethdev: configure SR-IOV VF from
host
On 30.10.2019 22:42, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
30/10/2019 17:09, Ilya Maximets:
On 30.10.2019 16:49, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
30/10/2019 16:07, Ilya Maximets:
On 29.10.2019 19:50, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
In a virtual environment, the network controller may have to
configure some SR-IOV VF parameters for security reasons.
[...]
If we consider what Intel did, i.e. configure VF in place of
representor for some operations, there are two drawbacks:
- confusing that some ops apply to representor, others apply to VF
- some ops are not possible on representor (because targetted to VF)
I still feel that the addition of one single bit in the port ID is an
elegant solution to target either the VF or its representor.
Since we already have a confusion about what is configured when
operations
are performed on a representor port we have 2 options:
I don't agree we have. I don't think there is any design note or API doc that
says the ethdev configuration on representor should be applied on VF
(please share if I missed it).
The fact that there are some drivers that implemented it doesn't mean it is
correct.
1. Have this proposed API to configure representor itself while
setting config to representor and configuring VF if special
bit enabled.
2. Reverse the logic of current proposal, i.e. always apply
configuration to VF while working with representor and apply
configuration to representor itself if special bit is set.
I'd probably prefer option #2, because:
- From the OVS and OpenStack point of view, I think, we don't
really need to configure representor itself in most cases.
And OVS really should not know if it works with representor
or some real port.
I don't thinks OVS can be really agnostic to the fact it runs on top of
representors:
1. probing of representor has different command line -w
<bdf>,representor=XXX
OVS doesn't care about content of devargs. It just passes them to hotplug
engine without any parsing (except a single case that must be eliminated
with a proper device iterators, not an OVS issue).
2. the whole acceleration framework based on insertion of flow rules for
direct forward from the VF to target entity. Rules are applied on the
representor and would not work if port is not such.
OVS tries to offload rules to the netdev from which packet was received.
That's it. If it succeeds - OK. If not, OVS doesn't care.
3. some multi-port devices cannot do direct fwd between its different port.
This is why rep has switch_id and application should query it and act upon.
This is part of offloading engine that doesn't affect the generic code.
If needed, OVS could request switch_id for netdev it tries to offload rules on.
OVS should not know if it representor port or not. If this operation will not
succeed for non-representors, OVS should not care because we can't offload
anything for non-representors anyway.
4. representor carry the VF port id. This is how application know to which
VF (or vport) they associated with on their other side.
This is just part of devargs, i.e. part of device unique identifier.
Once again, OVS doesn't parse devargs and should not do that.
- It seems that most of the existing code in DPDK already works
like this, i.e. applying configs to VF itself. Intel drivers
works like this and Mellanox drivers, as Thomas said, doesn't
have this functionality at all.
As I said above, I don't think we need to refer to specific driver behavior,
rather the API guidelines.
To me, it is a bit strange and not natural that ethdev configuration is applied
to different port w/o any explicit request from the application.
This is why I would prefer #1 above.
IMHO, the whole concept of representors is that representor is a
way of attaching same port both to VM and vSwitch/hypervisor.
If you're looking at representors as a separate ports on a switch, well..
In this case, for me VF configuration looks like something that
vSwitch should not do at all, because it should not configure ports
that doesn't attached to it. It's like configuring the other
side of veth pair, which is nonsense.
BTW, I don't know a way to find out if port is a representor of something
or not in Linux kernel.
