On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 07:07:01 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 09:56:28PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote: > >On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 15:02:39 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >> Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 03:10:54AM CET, wrote: > >> >On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 09:52:04 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >> >> Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 08:09:43PM CET, wrote: > >> >> >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? > >> > > >> >Right, orchestration. > >> > > >> >To be clear on where I'm going with this - if we want to allow VFs > >> >to partition themselves then they have to control what is effectively > >> >a "nested" switch. A per-VF set of rules which would the get > >> > >> Wait. If you allow to make VF subports (I believe that is what you ment > >> by VFs partition themselves), that does not mean they will have a > >> separate nested switch. They would still belong under the same one. > > > >But that existing switch is administered by the hypervisor, how would > >the VF owners install forwarding rules in a switch they don't control? > > They won't.
Argh. So how is forwarding configured if there are no rules? Are you going to assume its switching on MACs? We're supposed to offload software constructs. If its a software port it needs to be explicitly switched. If it's not explicitly switched - we already have macvlan offload. > >> >"flattened" into the main eswitch rule set. If I was to choose I'd > >> >really rather have this "flattening" be done on the (Linux) hypervisor > >> >and not in the vendor driver and firmware. > >> > >> Agreed. Driver should provide one big switch. User should configure it. > > > >Cool, when you say user - is it the tenant or the provider? > > Whoever gets access to the instance. > > >> >I'd much rather have the VM make a "give me another NIC" orchestration > >> >call via some high level REST API than devlink. This makes the > >> >configuration strictly high level to low level: > >> > > >> > VM -> cloud net REST API -> cloud agent -> devlink/Linux -> FW -> HW > >> > > >> >Without round trips via firmware. > >> > >> Okay. So the "devlink/Linux -> FW" part is going to happen on baremetal. > >> Makes sense. > >> > >> >This allows for easy policy enforcement, common code to be maintained > >> >in user space, in high level languages (no 0.5M LoC drivers and 10M LoC > >> >firmware for every driver). It can also be used with software paths > >> >like VirtIO.. > >> > >> Agreed. > >> > >> >Modelling and debugging a nested switch would be a nightmare. What > >> >follows is that we probably shouldn't deal with partitioning of VFs, > >> >but rather only partition via the PF devlink instance, and reassign > >> >the partitions to VMs. > >> > >> Agreed. That must be misunderstanding, I never suggested nested > >> switches. > > > >Cool, yes, I was making sure we weren't going in that direction :) > > Okay. > > >> >> I originally planned to implement sriov orchestration api in devlink > >> >> too. > >> > > >> >Interesting, would you mind elaborating? > >> > >> I have to think about it. But something like this: > >> [...] > > > >I see thanks for the examples, they makes things clear! > > Okay. I will put together some documentation including this. I have some > patches that implement some of the stuff. Your patchset also does some > of that (considering you adjust a thing or two). Lets make this right. Yeah, I feel like I'm again getting further from clarity on what you're trying to achieve.
