netdev - Re: igb bandwidth allocation configuration

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090915113659.GJ24194@verge.net.au>
Date:	Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:36:59 +1000
From:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To:	Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@...il.com>
Cc:	e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...taire.com>
Subject: Re: igb bandwidth allocation configuration

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:42:50AM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On 9/10/09, Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au> wrote:
> > I have been looking into adding support the 82586's per-PF/VF bandwidth allocation to
> > the igb driver. It seems that the trickiest part is working out how to expose things to
> > user-space.
> 
> Please note that there are bunch (not many, but more then 1-2) of
> things to configure from user space in a PF/VF scheme, and I think it
> would be best if we do that through one mechanism, which may be
> netlink based or extension to ethtool as you suggested, we've started
> to discuss this on the "L2 switching in igb" thread

Thanks, I've read that thread now. I'm certainly in favour
of discussing what mechanisms make sense.

It seems to me that the main problem is that from a driver point
of view the PF and VFs are independent. But from a hardware point
of view they aren't so its not always possible for their configuration
to be independent of each other. And I'm not sure what (existing) interfaces
can handle that nicely.

> The "82576 SR-IOV Driver Companion Guide" document, section 7.6
> mentions "Transmit Bandwidth Allocation to VFs... define minimum
> transmit bandwidth for individual VMs".
> 
> I'm not clear if one can program rate limiter (upper bound) per VF or
> actually rate guarantee per VF, even  with these being  just details
> of specific device, alex, I would be happy if you can clarify that.

Its not clear to me what you are asking.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html