[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100326.115753.160228163.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, gospo@...hat.com, gregory.v.rose@...el.com
Subject: Re: [net-2.6 PATCH 2/3] ixgbe: In SR-IOV mode insert delay before
bring the adapter up
From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:36:08 -0700
> From: Greg Rose <gregory.v.rose@...el.com>
>
> VFs running in guest VMs do not respond in as timely a manner to
> PF indication it is going down as they do when running in the host
> domain. If the adapter is in SR-IOV mode insert a two second delay
> to guarantee that all VFs have had time to respond to the PF reset.
> In any case resetting the PF while VFs are active should be
> discouraged but if it must be done then there will be a two
> second delay to help synchronize resets among the PF and all the
> VFs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Rose <gregory.v.rose@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Applied, but...
I know why you might need to do this, but this is going to completely
explode if someone tries to, f.e. bring up thousands of these
interfaces.
Maybe that's not practical, but is, say, 30? With a 2 second delay
each that's a full minute hanging at the command line or the bootup
scripts.
My point is that this behavior is basically extremely undesirable.
--
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