[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AAF963D.4060708@voltaire.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:27:25 +0300
From: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...taire.com>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
CC: e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Subject: Re: igb bandwidth allocation configuration
Simon Horman wrote:
> 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.
If the rate limiter is exposed as a feature of the VF, it doesn't matter
who really enforces it, the "VF portion" of the HW or the PF itself. I
agree that if you have to program the PF for the rate of a specific VF,
then its more complex. Basically, I would expect that a VF can be
configured with <mac, vlad-id, priority, rate> such that it can be done
where the VF NIC is spawned, host kernel or guest kernel.
> Its not clear to me what you are asking.
I'm was asking/wondering if the Intel NICs have a rate limiter (i.e one
can program the VF such that its rate doesn't exceed XX MB/s) or a "rate
guarantee" (i.e one can program the VF such that its guaranteed it will
get YY MB/s in case it wants to xmit at least this bandwidth)
Or.
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists