From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0068A329E for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 19:08:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1196E1C2F8; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 19:08:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-il1-f196.google.com (mail-il1-f196.google.com [209.85.166.196]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A68CE1C29F for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 19:08:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-il1-f196.google.com with SMTP id y5so19618164ilb.5 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:08:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=maQjgDCNdUtpqNmTyGalkdDmb1sFwseNzeU4KcC+v3A=; b=m0m3CxiLr6hbpGRprX0ETOx2umed3n4653P/4ipYI3Y5eqWQ+Jody9KzmqarTifOlq 1qoMykCTWeiftbdSRlr0MX9WuIp8nT7DlY0xIKTUBnuYpk1GI0oRJAEcbGuZfS1EXiHr d8aAi6zlAkkd/VfGt5HTuPjMPeI68ftaevGF1Cdo0mxc0tNIzL5dvciDZEF3SbfOKTCR jFGO2povkKo+A7vQelCgTZMCVjb4NTW82y/x/oupSRxd6NQ5hZcfOFzOE97PI7Hjh9is IBPUbwkMToZ4HuenVKjaD2rZnIOFEG6Ek6WlxoxaBYu2m5JeKjtwND16Bb/YWp/TrAkA deQw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=maQjgDCNdUtpqNmTyGalkdDmb1sFwseNzeU4KcC+v3A=; b=kQvVnO0hgjrd7vUrCy3JNi/UX/TZ/LnhnCy1U7/EaICIi35ygJ4rzSeM9Om0qRcPko F9jb1zB77o+To+zz22ID5YvhbSH9Yvua4wuQA7k1KlUb10KRrijUgFovygs3cA2AYI2q oki4X14A96/lW5LhvdWRkdmEP3lXmqaRfbm03c22q6eg0KLjiXJqmjrGWFC1JQasCNid Lfk7o4BAny+8019cc8zsZUxeHUu0EIHcxtdB9vwk126UxiNkVr8uYndbAejkOyTPFkYb 6seOdjXH8R3K5trkedjHByS8ssYNhxAKjihtXz/0Ut27151Tl6bxcC30PIZVW7Eq59uu fvDQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVBw/O+/YTupRpBl4WjtgDx2BA5bHredfwX4jo4ty2sbkJrgpG7 Gn9//0LKg8Adc0CUqrwc6+gIKgwBt6lDiO9QEQw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzY9kZYfCY85N4fdhiEA/1EaIrbBHSJmm/e3KXNW/m8x4jTjA3xpJre58Rj0dydTpiX3640/rdDmsb8TVyyqxQ= X-Received: by 2002:a92:ce12:: with SMTP id b18mr25669012ilo.130.1571850533730; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:08:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190906091230.13923-1-vattunuru@marvell.com> <20191008081244.425551a0@hermes.lan> <20191009162831.0c1cf204@hermes.lan> In-Reply-To: From: Jerin Jacob Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 22:38:36 +0530 Message-ID: To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: Vamsi Attunuru , dpdk-dev , Thomas Monjalon , Jerin Jacob Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/1] kernel/linux: introduce vfio_pf kernel module 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 5:07 PM Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > > > > > > > > no-iommu case is different where we cannot screw Linux netdev driver, you can create a damage to your self that's an acceptable compromise. > > > > > > In this case, when DPDK PF bound application dies then it will impact netdev VF driver as gets stalled and there is a security issues to VF netdev driver that DPDK PF can intersect the netdev VF mailbox message. > > > > > > So this case is different where from Kernel PoV there is damange to netdev VF so this can not be accepted in Linux. > > > > > > One option is to add this piece of code igb-uio instead to adding new driver. What do you say? > > > > > > It is the problem for all non bifurcated drivers in DPDK not specific to Marvell. > > > > > > The workaround is to use igb-uio with non VFIO. > > > We can not support UIO through performance reason hence we need a solution that works for VFIO due to HW accelerated mempool architecture (applicable for all NPU) > > > > > > We can not have VFIO vs UIO specific features disparity in DPDK. Please have same treatment. Either remove igb-uio hacks from Dpdk or enable non upsteamble features through igb-uio.So that there is no disparity for a specific use case / vendor. > > > > Andrew Rybchenko already acked this patch and I provided enough data > > on the need for this patch. > > I hope there is no more confusion about the need for this patch. > > > I assume no more issue to merge this patch for RC1. If yes, please discuss. Ping++