Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 08:09:43PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote: >On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 15:54:21 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 03:52:02AM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote: >> >On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 10:48:16 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 06:56:38PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote: >> >> >On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 13:20:37 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> >For creating subdevices, I don't think the handle should ever be port. >> >> >We create new ports on a devlink instance, and configure its forwarding >> >> > >> >> >> >> Okay I agree. Something like: >> >> $ devlink port add pci/0000:00:10.0 ..... >> >> >> >> It's a bit confusing because "set" accepts port handle (like >> >> pci/0000:00:10.0/1). Probably better would be: >> >> $ devlink dev port add pci/0000:00:10.0 ..... >> >> >> >> >with offloads of well established Linux SW constructs. New devices are >> >> >not logically associated with other ports (see how in my patches there >> >> >are 2 "subports" but no main port on that PF - a split not a hierarchy). >> >> > >> >> >> >> Right, basically you have 2 equal objects. Makes sense. >> >> >> >> >How we want to model forwarding inside a VM (who configures the >> >> >underlying switching) remains unclear. >> >> >> >> I don't understand. Could you elaborate a bit? >> > >> >If VF in a VM gets a partitioning request does the new port pop up on >> >the hypervisor? With a port netdev? >> >> Switchport in hypervizor with correct switchid attribute, hostport in >> vm. Makes sense? > >If the switchport is in the hypervisor then only the hypervisor can >control switching/forwarding, correct?
Correct. > >The primary use case for partitioning within a VM (of a VF) would be >containers (and DPDK)? Makes sense. > >SR-IOV makes things harder. Splitting a PF is reasonably easy to grasp. >I'm trying to get a sense of is how would we control an SR-IOV >environment as a whole. You mean orchestration? I originally planned to implement sriov orchestration api in devlink too. > >> >Does the VF also create a port object as well as host port object? >> > >> >That question is probably independent of host port discussion. >
