From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f193.google.com (mail-wr0-f193.google.com [209.85.128.193]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A23B72FC for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 08:04:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr0-f193.google.com with SMTP id f14-v6so10580753wre.4 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 23:04:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=netronome-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=06PzTjsh6UR9WYoF4CVqbjDy3j1aos+HtxqV19sp/RM=; b=J90NBhvmvGBzuZnCtbrbO7erqPQS6ha2V/NDYHtWnYY1fUYWSvjPKMAvSSQtBze2uZ sKHVfgsKRKdq6qlzPiuNnHu/i82UrCRBcjwq114Y62Jd1p+4/Vqx6lBIASeA8mVkKHSz 4XOoeD76SD73klJLN5k3yMwf0d9Tr241JhKOfomde2rlDavGBr8XcXBxWDiFLmI1iQxk Ai/+mOZiuDzFIaytKY/Jp7BS7/esfsLh8ntqf8SE8X2mmhDb9eBLpFZ7icGU4ImUZf/5 JUJk57jCxcRwfQFts8g+UU/ODryVDNQXE1ZWAearQBcZeLECqgLnzhCsSixbLquBLest MAiQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=06PzTjsh6UR9WYoF4CVqbjDy3j1aos+HtxqV19sp/RM=; b=bG4XD9bTYn5bIcgf+vAP7ATh8iuKZ1/DJzZBDwcqJaV7VEhVM+iCLgnj+aKS7wG2A5 c6qEhytx5ZC8r4gLf7Pac6+fuHFF55a0ZP2M3DmhMdnzUByD1J1KnOe353DAW/K7kohD m0Gm3pj/jGULi9F0IFWX98YakEJ09Rz4S9c1ORb94g4JHoYyMw7ukR1Z/u2cT5wu2qeM whZzqzOjbSCV+rpJoPoSoQqQNTC3h/dvTzd8QYOXYcR7r8Cy/8NH7DsulB00PxHIf8bO 0ajdYJnfhtbfMVj0TgiTD3HBYlaUybcMNBx5gVPfdlnjZbpxpc1JEn6Bfihmc24ir7fr wHmA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tCCgSEVp7OC7VlESorcnwK6zk1IBJDLtt6i2DFu/UcfrU1uulee y5fhSZISqBvqI31pAV7hPPOe583ZNAd5qpEG6/+X+g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx489iddAsijb3XbrKLY/BYvcGRmBhD1jEbf0JM51Np6RfmZTmKT62TBXafyjRNnar29TcENGMmATK1VYdTaofrw= X-Received: by 10.80.167.129 with SMTP id i1mr6952196edc.32.1524117867883; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 23:04:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.212.197 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 23:04:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20180418185411.GK2549@plex.lan> References: <2407757.yEAnF6RcS7@xps> <20180418141101.GB2549@plex.lan> <20180418111747.1a0033a1@xeon-e3> <20180418185411.GK2549@plex.lan> From: Alejandro Lucero Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 07:04:27 +0100 Message-ID: To: Flavio Leitner Cc: Stephen Hemminger , Thomas Monjalon , dev , Bruce Richardson , "Burakov, Anatoly" , David Marchand , jia.guo@intel.com, matan@mellanox.com, "Ananyev, Konstantin" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] kernel binding of devices + hotplug X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 06:04:28 -0000 I do not completely understand the discussion, but I think the disagreement is due to how some devices interact with DPDK, at least Mellanox ones. I'm saying that because we have a DPDK app which starts with no device at all (--no-pci) and it relies on device plugging attach/detach for configuring and removing ports once devices are bound to VFIO or UIO drivers. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think because Mellanox cards do not use VFIO or UIO drivers but some specific bound using verbs inside the PMD, leaving all this binding to the system does not fit them. If that is the case, although I agree with leaving the device binding to the system, I think it would be fair to contemplate a dual approach for legacy reasons, or to leave time for implementing a pseudo system driver which Mellanox can use for having same functionality. On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 7:54 PM, Flavio Leitner wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:17:47AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 11:11:01 -0300 > > Flavio Leitner wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 01:48:36AM +0000, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > > My vote is to work with udev and not try to replace it. > > > > > > > > Driverctl works well. Just not for bifurcated driver > > > > > > I second that. We also have other system configs to care about like > > > kernel parameters and hugepage configuration which I think follow the > > > same idea that they are system wide configs and should not be managed > > > by DPDK itself. > > > > Maybe teach driverctl (and udev) to handle bifurcated drivers. > > I don't know the challenges to tech driverctl to handle bifurcated > drivers but I would agree that it should be our first place to look at. > > > Unfortunately, vendors are very fractured on how network devices are > managed. > > You mean distros? hw vendors? all vendors? :) > > Perhaps if community focus on something, then they might follow at some > point. > > -- > Flavio >