From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C2DD68F8 for ; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 19:02:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 Sep 2016 10:02:19 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,382,1470726000"; d="scan'208";a="13044311" Received: from irsmsx107.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.99]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 Sep 2016 10:02:18 -0700 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.164]) by IRSMSX107.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.10.95]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 18:02:17 +0100 From: "Iremonger, Bernard" To: Thomas Monjalon , "Richardson, Bruce" CC: "dev@dpdk.org" , Jerin Jacob , "Shah, Rahul R" , "Lu, Wenzhuo" , azelezniak Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] librte_ether: add API's for VF management Thread-Index: AQHR/3nL92Tihh00JUigC2GSiYccqaBxO5UAgATmckCAAQ+CAIADl+fwgAsNpYCAARC+AIAABFiAgAAE4YCAADhQAIAASFBQ Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 17:02:16 +0000 Message-ID: <8CEF83825BEC744B83065625E567D7C21A08CBA1@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1471528125-26357-1-git-send-email-bernard.iremonger@intel.com> <3936536.tPp6g5Daih@xps13> <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B035AFEF9E@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> <1942295.3Ll4jqpiva@xps13> In-Reply-To: <1942295.3Ll4jqpiva@xps13> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiOTE2ZjA3ZDUtNDg2MS00NzFiLTllM2ItY2M3YjliYTA2MDRjIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX1BVQkxJQyJ9XX1dfSwiU3ViamVjdExhYmVscyI6W10sIlRNQ1ZlcnNpb24iOiIxNS45LjYuNiIsIlRydXN0ZWRMYWJlbEhhc2giOiJvTjd0bEJHQU0rTjhabnZBVEczNm82bWtTQXpwRGhqSjljWmV3SEp4ZE9nPSJ9 x-ctpclassification: CTP_PUBLIC x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.181] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] librte_ether: add API's for VF management X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 17:02:21 -0000 Hi Thoms > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 2:15 PM > To: Richardson, Bruce ; Iremonger, Bernard > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Jerin Jacob ; Shah, > Rahul R ; Lu, Wenzhuo ; > azelezniak > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] librte_ether: add API's for VF > management >=20 > 2016-09-23 09:53, Richardson, Bruce: > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > > 2016-09-23 10:20, Bruce Richardson: > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 07:04:37PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > 2016-09-15 16:46, Iremonger, Bernard: > > > > > > > > > Do we really need to expose VF specific functions here? > > > > > > > > > It can be generic(PF/VF) function indexed only through > > > port_id. > > > > > > > > > (example: as rte_eth_dev_set_vlan_anti_spoof(uint8_t > > > > > > > > > port_id, uint8_t on)) For instance, In Thunderx PMD, We > > > > > > > > > are not exposing a separate port_id for PF. We only > > > > > > > > > enumerate 0..N VFs as 0..N ethdev port_id > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our intention with this patch is to control the VF from the= PF. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The following librte_ether functions already work in a > > > > > > > > similar > > > way: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_set_vf_rxmode(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t vf, > > > > > > > > uint16_t rx_mode, uint8_t on) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_set_vf_rx(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t vf, > > > > > > > > uint8_t > > > > > > > > on) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_set_vf_tx(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t vf, > > > > > > > > uint8_t > > > > > > > > on) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > int rte_eth_set_vf_rate_limit(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t > > > > > > > > vf, uint16_t tx_rate, uint64_t q_msk) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a bad feeling with these functions dedicated to VF fro= m PF. > > > > > > > Are we sure there is no other way? > > > > > > > I mean we just need to know the VF with a port ID. > > > > > > > > > > > > When the VF is used in a VM the port ID of the VF is not > > > > > > visible to > > > the PF. > > > > > > I don't think there is another way to do this. > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand why we could not assign a port id to the VF > > > > > from the host instead of having the couple PF port id / VF id. > > > > > Can we enumerate all the VFs associated to a PF? > > > > > Then can we allocate them a port id in the array rte_eth_devices? > > > > > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > > > > > The VF is not a port visible to DPDK, though, so it shouldn't have > > > > a port id IMHO. DPDK can't actually do anything with it. > > > > > > You say the contrary below. > > > > Well, yes and no. The driver can manipulate things for the VF, but DPDK > doesn't actually have a device that corresponds to the VF. There are no P= CI > bar mappings for it, DPDK can't do RX and TX with it etc.? >=20 > Very good point. > There are only few ethdev functions which are supported by every drivers, > like Rx/Tx and would not be available for VF from PF interface. >=20 > > > > The PCI device for the VF is likely passed through to a different > > > > VM and being used there. Unfortunately, the VF still needs certain > > > > things done for it by the PF, so if the PF is under DPDK control, > > > > it needs to provide the functionality to assist the VF. > > > > > > Why not have a VF_from_PF driver which does the mailbox things? > > > So you can manage the VF from the PF with a simple port id. > > > It really seems to be the cleanest design to me. > > > > While I see your point, and it could work, I just want to be sure that = we are > ok with the results of that. Suppose we do create ethdevs for the VFs > controlled by the PF. Does the new VF get counted in the > rte_eth_dev_count() value (I assume yes)? How are apps meant to use the > port? Do they have to put in a special case when iterating through all th= e port > ids to check that it's not a pseudo port that can't do anything. None of = the > standard ethdev calls from an app will work on it, you can't configure nb= rx/tx > queues on it, you can't start or stop it, you can't do rx or tx on it, et= c, etc. >=20 > Yes these devices would be special because their supported API would be > quite different. I was thinking that in the future you could add most of = the > configuration functions through the VF mailbox. > But the Intel mailbox currently support only some special configurations > which are not supported by other devices even its own VF device (except > setting MAC address). > And when I read "set drop enable bit in the VF split rx control register"= , it > becomes clear it is really specific and has nothing to do in the generic = ethdev > API. > That's why it is a NACK. >=20 > When we want to use these very specific features we are aware of the > underlying device and driver. So we can directly include a header from th= e > driver. I suggest to retrieve a handler for the device which is not a por= t id and > will allow to call ixgbe functions directly. > It could be achieved by adding an ethdev function like discussed here: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-September/047392.html >=20 I have been reading the net/vhost mail thread above. The following quote is= from this thread. "It means I would be in favor of introducing API in drivers for very specif= ic features." At present all the PMD functions are accessed through the eth_dev_ops struc= ture, there are no PMD API's. Is your proposal to add API(s) to the DPDK ixgbe PMD (similar to a driver i= octl API) which can be accessed through a generic API in the ethdev? What will this generic API look like? Regards, Bernard.