[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJ3xEMgMkz1FZ-QObMvc28JQT0Osrf-k7_RfanUYkYP=F8jZGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:04:28 +0300
From: Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
To: "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"nhorman@...hat.com" <nhorman@...hat.com>,
"sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>,
"jogreene@...hat.com" <jogreene@...hat.com>,
guru.anbalagane@...cle.com, Ilya Lesokhin <ilyal@...lanox.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
Rony Efraim <ronye@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 01/15] i40e: Introduce VF port representor/control netdevs
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Samudrala, Sridhar
<sridhar.samudrala@...el.com> wrote:
> On 9/20/2016 9:22 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Jeff Kirsher
>> <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
>>> This patch enables creation of a VF Port representor/Control netdev
>>> associated with each VF. These netdevs can be used to control and
>>> configure
>>> VFs from PFs namespace. They enable exposing VF statistics, configuring
>>> link state, mtu, fdb/vlan entries etc.
>>
>> What happens if someone does a xmit on the VF representor, does the
>> packet show up @ the VF?
>> and what happens of the VF xmits and there's no HW steering rule that
>> matches this, does
>> the frame show up @ the VF rep on the host?
> TX/RX are not yet supported via VFPR netdevs in this patch series.
> Will be submitting this support in the next patchset.
Okay, good.
>> In other words, can these VF reps serve for setting up host SW based
>> switching which you
>> can later offload (through TC, bridge, netfilter, etc)?
> Yes. These offloads will be possible via VFPRs.
cool
>> I am posing these questions because in downstream patch you are adding
>> devlink support
>> for set/get the e-switch mode and you declare the default mode to be switchdev.
>> When the switchdev mode was introduced in 4.8 these RX/TX
>> characteristics were defined
>> to be an essential (== requirement) part for a driver to support that mode.
> The current patchset introduces the basic VFPR support starting with
> exposing VF stats and syncing link state between VFs and VFPRs.
> We decided to declare the default mode to be switchdev so that the new code
> paths will get exercised by default during normal testing.
so what happens after this patchset is applied and before the future
work is submitted?
RX/TX slow path through the VFPRs isn't supported and what about fast
path? in other words
what happens when someone loads the driver, sets SRIOV (--> the driver
set itself to switchdev mode
and VFPRs are created) and then a VF sends a packet? do you still put
into the HW the legacy DMAC
based switching rules? I am not following...
Or.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists