On 4/13/2018 1:57 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Or Gerlitz <gerlitz...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:33 PM, Samudrala, Sridhar
<sridhar.samudr...@intel.com> wrote:
On 4/12/2018 1:20 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 8:05 PM, Samudrala, Sridhar
<sridhar.samudr...@intel.com> wrote:
On 11/12/2017 11:49 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
Hi Dave and all,
During and after the BoF on SRIOV switchdev mode, we came into a
consensus among the developers from four different HW vendors (CC
audience) that a correct thing to do would be to disallow any new
extensions to the legacy mode.
The idea is to put focus on the new mode and not add new UAPIs and
kernel code which was turned to be a wrong design which does not allow
for properly offloading a kernel switching SW model to e-switch HW.
We also had a good session the day after regarding alignment for the
representation model of the uplink (physical port) and PF/s.
The VF representor netdevs exist for all drivers that support the new
mode but the representation for the uplink and PF wasn't the same for
all. The decision was to represent the uplink and PFs vports in the
same manner done for VFs, using rep netdevs. This alignment would
provide a more strict and clear view of the kernel model for e-switch
to users and upper layer control plane SW.
I don't see any changes in the Mellanox/other drivers to move to this new
model to enable the uplink and PF port representors, any updates?
Yeah, I am worked on that but didn't get to finalize the upstreaming
so far. I have resumed
the work and plan uplink rep in mlx5 to replace the PF being uplink rep
for 4.18
It would be really nice to highlight the pros and cons of the old versus
the
new model.
We are looking into adding switchdev support for our new 100Gb ice driver
and could use some feedback on the direction we should be taking.
good news.
The uplink rep is clear cut that needs to be a rep device representing
the uplink just like vf
rep represents the vport toward the vf - please just do it correct
from the begining
Having an uplink rep will definitely help implement the slow path with
flat/vlan network
scenarios by not having to add PF to the bridge.
But how do they help with a vxlan overlay scenario? In case of overlays, the
slow path has to go via vxlan -> ip stack -> pf?
in overlay networks scheme, the uplink has the VTEP ip and is not connected
the uplink rep has the vtep ip
to the bridge, e.g you use ovs you have vf reps and vxlan ports connected to ovs
and the ip stack routes through the uplink rep
This changes the legacy mode behavior of configuring vtep ip on the pf netdev.
How does host to host traffic expected to work when vtep ip is moved to uplink
rep?
What about pf-rep?
Are you planning to create a pf-rep too? Is pf also treated similar to vf in
switchdev mode?
All pf traffic goes to pf-rep and pf-rep traffic goes to pf by default without
any rules
programmed?
