On 02/11/2016 17:50, Mintz, Yuval wrote: >> Sending RFC to get feedback for the following ethtool proposal: >> >> In some cases such as virtual machines and multi functions (SR-IOV), the >> actual >> bandwidth exposed for each machine is not accurately shown in ethtool. >> Currently ethtool shows only physical port link speed. >> In our case we would like to show the virtual port operational link speed >> which >> in some cases is less than the physical port speed. >> >> This will give users better visibility for the actual speed running on their >> device. >> >> $ ethtool ens6 >> ... >> Speed: 50000Mb/s >> Actual speed: 25000Mb/s > > Not saying this is a bad thing, but where exactly is it listed that ethtool > has > to show the physical port speed? > E.g., bnx2x shows the logical speed instead, and has been doing that for > years. > [Perhaps that's a past wrongness, but that's how it goes]. > > And besides, one can argue that in the SR-IOV scenario the VF has no business > knowing the physical port speed. >
Good point, but there are more use-cases we should consider. For example, when using Multi-Host/Flex-10/Multi-PF each PF should be able to query both physical port speed and actual speed.
