netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 19/19] sfc: Add SR-IOV back-end support for SFC9000 family

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: <4F3C595A.3020401@intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:18:18 -0800
From:	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com,
	Shradha Shah <sshah@...arflare.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 19/19] sfc: Add SR-IOV back-end support for SFC9000
 family

On 2/15/2012 4:52 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On the SFC9000 family, each port has 1024 Virtual Interfaces (VIs),
> each with an RX queue, a TX queue, an event queue and a mailbox
> register.  These may be assigned to up to 127 SR-IOV virtual functions
> per port, with up to 64 VIs per VF.
> 
> We allocate an extra channel (IRQ and event queue only) to receive
> requests from VF drivers.
> 
> There is a per-port limit of 4 concurrent RX queue flushes, and queue
> flushes may be initiated by the MC in response to a Function Level
> Reset (FLR) of a VF.  Therefore, when SR-IOV is in use, we submit all
> flush requests via the MC.
> 
> The RSS indirection table is shared with VFs, so the number of RX
> queues used in the PF is limited to the number of VIs per VF.
> 
> This is almost entirely the work of Steve Hodgson, formerly
> shodgson@...arflare.com.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
> ---

Hi Ben,

So how would multiple VIs per VF work? Looks like each VI has a TX/RX
pair all bundled under a single netdev with some set of TX MAC filters.

Do you expect users to build tc rules and edit the queue_mapping to get
the skb headed at the correct tx queue? Would it be better to model each
VI has its own net device.

Thanks,
John

--
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