> -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of O Mahony, > Billy > Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2015 11:13 PM > To: Ben Pfaff > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH RFC 1/1] docs: Clarify bonding of DPDK > enabled interfaces. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ben Pfaff [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2015 4:45 PM > > To: O Mahony, Billy > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH RFC 1/1] docs: Clarify bonding of DPDK > > enabled interfaces. > > > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 04:33:15PM +0100, [email protected] > wrote: > > > From: Billy O'Mahony <[email protected]> > > > > > > Unlike system interfaces, DPDK enabled interfaces must have their > > > interface type explicitly set when used to create bonded ports. > > > Mention this at the relevant points in the documentation. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Billy O'Mahony <[email protected]> > > > > Thanks for working on the documentation! > > We all know it's good for us but no one does enough of it! > > > > > I'm not sure why this is worth mentioning only at one particular point > > in the FAQ. Every single add-bond or add-port in the FAQ potentially > > needs to be followed up by setting the correct interface type, right? > > It's not even complicated. > > The difference I noticed is that creating a bond with DPDK-enabled interfaces > would fail immediately without the 'set Interface type=dpdk' clause. > Whereas for system interfaces the bond would even if the interface type > was not set. Though I didn't actually check if the bond was actually > functioning in that case. > > I'll check next Tuesday (it's a holiday weekend here). If port/bond is > unusable > without the explicit 'set Interface type=...' then I'll update the > documentation/examples to mention this.
I just got a chance to check this out and yes, the DPDK-enabled interfaces do behave differently to the 'system' interfaces in this regard. Creating a port or a bond using a system an interface does not require a 'set Interface type=system' clause on the ovs-vsctl add-port/add-bond line. Even though in this case the type column in the Interface table remains empty (it would say 'system' in the case where '-- set Interface <interface> type=system' was appended to the add-port line), the interface still seems to behave as a 'system' interface and the port or bond created in this shorthand way does function. I could be misunderstanding but it appears that it's only the DPDK-enabled interfaces that require this special treatment. > > > > > It might be worth adding a new FAQ (or FAQ section for DPDK) that says > > to set the Interface types when adding ports or bonds. > > > > There is an Install.DPDK.md already so might be easiest to keep the DPDK > specific info in there. > > > > ovs-vsctl add-br br0 > > > ovs-vsctl add-bond br0 bond0 eth0 eth1 > > > > > > - Bonds have tons of configuration options. Please read the > > > - documentation on the Port table in ovs-vswitchd.conf.db(5) > > > + Bonds have tons of configuration options and the configuration > > > + for DPDK enabled interfaces is less straightforward. Please read > > > + the documentation on the Port table in ovs-vswitchd.conf.db(5) > > > for all the details. > > > > > > - Perhaps you don't actually need eth0 and eth1 to be on the > > > > Here, again I'm not sure why this is just for bonds. Non-bonded ports > > need the same treatment, right? > > > > > @@ -282,7 +282,9 @@ is an error. With \fB\-\-may\-exist\fR, this > > > command does nothing if .IP "[\fB\-\-fake\-iface\fR] \fBadd\-bond > > \fIbridge port iface\fR\&... > > [\fIcolumn\fR[\fB:\fIkey\fR]\fR=\fIvalue\fR]\&...\fR" > > > Creates on \fIbridge\fR a new port named \fIport\fR that bonds > > > together the network devices given as each \fIiface\fR. At least > > > two -interfaces must be named. > > > +interfaces must be named. If the interfaces are DPDK enabled then > > > +the transaction will need to include operations to explicitly set > > > +the interface type to 'dpdk'. > > > .IP > > > Optional arguments set values of column in the Port record created > > > by the command. The syntax is the same as that for the \fBset\fR > > > command > > > > Thanks, > > > > Ben. > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
