Hi Ivan,
Thanks for your response.
Let me explain you the issue that we are facing on our virtual router
in VMware environment.
1. We are using ixgbe driver , SRIOV enabled .
root at localhost:~# lspci
.... "Intel Corporation 82599 Ethernet Controller Virtual Function"
2. "mx86-bgl-1-r1" is our router under testing and R2 is a standard router.
mx86-bgl-1-r1 is connected to R2
mx86-bgl-1-r1 (10.1.1.103)------------------>R2(10.1.1.101)
2. This time ping test passes
root at mx86-bgl-1-r1# show interfaces
ge-0/0/0 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.1.1.103/24;
}
}
}
[edit]
root at mx86-bgl-1-r1#
root at mx86-bgl-1-r1# run ping 10.1.1.101
PING 10.1.1.101 (10.1.1.101): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 10.1.1.101: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.980 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.101: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.433 ms
3. Default MAC address of interface ge-0/0/0 is as shown below:
root at mx86-bgl-1-r1# run show interfaces ge-0/0/0 extensive | grep current
Current address: 02:06:0a:0e:ff:f0, Hardware address: 02:06:0a:0e:ff:f0
[edit]
root at mx86-bgl-1-r1#
4. Now I am changing MAC. Ping works this time also
root at mx86-bgl-1-r1# set interfaces ge-0/0/0 mac 02:06:0a:0a:ff:f0
[edit]
root at mx86-bgl-1-r1# commit
commit complete
[edit]
root at mx86-bgl-1-r1# run show interfaces ge-0/0/0 extensive | grep current
Current address: 02:06:0a:0a:ff:f0, Hardware address: 02:06:0a:0e:ff:f0
[edit]
root at mx86-bgl-1-r1# show interfaces
ge-0/0/0 {
mac 02:06:0a:0a:ff:f0;
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.1.1.103/24;
}
}
}
[edit]
root at mx86-bgl-1-r1#
root at mx86-bgl-1-r1# run ping 10.1.1.101
PING 10.1.1.101 (10.1.1.101): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 10.1.1.101: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=1.338 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.101: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=8.832 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.101: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=1.292 ms
5. I am deleting the above configured MAC.
In this case newly configured MAC as shown above will be deleted
and Default MAC (02:06:0a:0e:ff:f0)
will be applied. Ping fails at this step. "return statement
added by you is not allowing to configure default MAC.
[edit]
root at mx86-bgl-1-r1# delete interfaces ge-0/0/0 mac
[edit]
root at mx86-bgl-1-r1# commit
commit complete
[edit]
root at mx86-bgl-1-r1# show interfaces
ge-0/0/0 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.1.1.103/24;
}
}
}
[edit]
root at mx86-bgl-1-r1# run show interfaces ge-0/0/0 extensive | grep
current // Displays value from router's local database not from
NIC.
Current address: 02:06:0a:0e:ff:f0, Hardware address: 02:06:0a:0e:ff:f0
[edit]
root at mx86-bgl-1-r1# run ping 10.1.1.101
PING 10.1.1.101 (10.1.1.101): 56 data bytes
^C
2 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
[edit]
root at mx86-bgl-1-r1#
7. LOGs: (I have added a debug log just before the return statement
that you place)
Log o/p in failure case
....
Santosh ixgbevf_add_mac_addr returning
....
code changes:
-----------------------------
ixgbevf_add_mac_addr(....) {
...
if (memcmp(hw->mac.perm_addr, mac_addr, sizeof(struct ether_addr)) == 0) {
PMD_DRV_LOG(DEBUG, "Existing MAC \n");
printf("Santosh %s returning \n",__FUNCTION__);
return;
}
8. If I remove the above "return" statement, build the driver, loaded
in router and repeat the steps-2 to steps-5 of MAC add and MAC delete
on our router then ping passes.
root at mx86-bgl-1-r1# run ping 10.1.1.101
PING 10.1.1.101 (10.1.1.101): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 10.1.1.101: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=2.356 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.101: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.415 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.101: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=1.226 ms
^C
--- 10.1.1.101 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 1.226/1.666/2.356/0.494 ms
9. Please let me know whether is it fine to remove that return
statement added by you in "ixgbevf_add_mac_addr" ?
Thanks & Regards,
Santosh
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 3:31 AM, Ivan Boule <ivan.boule at 6wind.com> wrote:
> Hi Santosh,
>
> I do not get exactly what you attempt to do on a VF.
> Are you first deleting the so-called permanent MAC address by a call to the
> function ixgbevf_remove_mac_addr() ? This operation is not allowed.
> Can you explain exactly the sequence of operations that are done, so that I
> can understand how the test (memcmp(hw->mac.perm_addr, mac_addr,
> sizeof(struct ether_addr)) == 0) in the function ixgbevf_add_mac_addr()
> prevents them to be successfully performed.
>
> Ivan
>
> PS : please, can you CC your emails to dev at dpdk.org
>
>
> 2016-04-19 17:01 GMT+02:00 santosh <santosh.iitg at gmail.com>:
>>
>> Hi Ivan,
>>
>> Your following code changes causing issue in Vmware environment.
>>
>> ----------------------------------- -------------------
>> ------------------------------
>> + /*
>> + * On a 82599 VF, adding again the same MAC addr is not an idempotent
>> + * operation. Trap this case to avoid exhausting the [very limited]
>> + * set of PF resources used to store VF MAC addresses.
>> + */
>> + if (memcmp(hw->mac.perm_addr, mac_addr, sizeof(struct ether_addr)) == 0)
>> + return;
>> diag = ixgbevf_set_uc_addr_vf(hw, 2, mac_addr->addr_bytes);
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------- -------
>>
>>
>> Issue:
>> At CLI , we have provision to add /del MAC of an interface.
>> During MAC delete, existing MAC is deleted and default MAC is applied.
>> This default MAC is not being applied in VMware environment
>> successfully due to "return" statement
>> in your above code changes. As a result traffic is stopped completely.
>> If I remove above
>> "return" statement then traffic continues to flow after MAC delete.
>>
>> Please let me know your suggestion to handle this scenario . If I
>> remove "return" what will be the consequences ?
>>
>> If removing "return" statement is not good idea then what are other
>> way to handle MAC delete scenario ? we have only 1 VF per PF in our
>> setup as of now.
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>> Santosh
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ivan BOULE
> 6WIND
> Software Engineer
>
> Tel: +33 1 39 30 92 47
> Mob: + 33 6 77 25 26 38
> Fax: +33 1 39 30 92 11
> ivan.boule at 6wind.com
> www.6wind.com
> Join the Multicore Packet Processing Forum:
> www.multicorepacketprocessing.com
>
> Ce courriel ainsi que toutes les pi?ces jointes, est uniquement destin? ?
> son ou ses destinataires. Il contient des informations confidentielles qui
> sont la propri?t? de 6WIND. Toute r?v?lation, distribution ou copie des
> informations qu'il contient est strictement interdite. Si vous avez re?u ce
> message par erreur, veuillez imm?diatement le signaler ? l'?metteur et
> d?truire toutes les donn?es re?ues.
>
> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the
> intended recipient(s) and contains information that is confidential and
> proprietary to 6WIND. All unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
> distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
> contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
> message.
>
