netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next 0/3] nfp: support VF multi-queues 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]

Date:   Thu, 27 Oct 2022 09:46:54 +0000
From:   Yinjun Zhang <yinjun.zhang@...igine.com>
To:     Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>
CC:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>,
        Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
        Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Nole Zhang <peng.zhang@...igine.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        oss-drivers <oss-drivers@...igine.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 0/3] nfp: support VF multi-queues configuration

On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 09:46:54 +0100, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
<...>
> if you want to go with q as a resource, then you will have to start
> assigning individual queues to vfs one by one.. hence q_table per VF will
> make it easier to control q table size per vf, with max size and guaranteed
> size.

Excuse my foolishness, I still don't get your q_table. What I want is allocating
a certain amount of queues from a queue pool for different VFs, can you 
provide an example of q_table?

<...>
> 
> Thanks, good to know it's not a FW/ASIC constraint,
> I am trying to push for one unified orchestration model for all VFs,SFs and
> the
> upcoming intel's SIOV function.
> 
> create->configure->deploy. This aligns with all standard virtualization
> orchestration modles, libvirt, kr8, etc ..
> 
> Again i am worried we will have to support a config query for ALL possible
> functions prior to creation.
> 
> Anyway i am flexible, I am ok with having a configure option prior to
> creation as long as it doesn't create clutter, and user confusion, and it's
> semantically correct.

Thanks for your ok and thanks to Leon's explanation, I understand your
create->config->deploy proposal. But I have to say the resource way
doesn't break it, you can config it after creating, and it's not constrained
to it, you can config it before creating as well.

> 
> we can also extend devlink port API to allow configure ops on "future"
> ports and we can always extend the API to accept yaml file as an extension
> of what Jakub suggested in LPC, to avoid one by one configurations.
> 
>