From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 283F3A0548 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2021 02:40:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC7A940DDA; Thu, 4 Nov 2021 02:40:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-il1-f181.google.com (mail-il1-f181.google.com [209.85.166.181]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0986440689 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2021 02:40:51 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-il1-f181.google.com with SMTP id w10so4581998ilc.13 for ; Wed, 03 Nov 2021 18:40:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=mlDejjAvun13++xbfPVNKiXElPpmL84yiVZICcNFw0Q=; b=iI2GEx3jkzdhDwvVV7QaGcLqJLxnTQpJ/o5UODYdmYgcDzlLQonLqWx75pDuz22ddB DNXTBB+1Qj0HZaAbirPGACMSYz4SuXtwQjAfT6mBAg3+Xaa4H9/u2YW/SGQgYF5/3bSA lYyOlkUerdnuBGIREAIclEeCt9ROE2yfeCjcq1bZtXCSJy8GPjxLwsGjggwiyxAWu9o+ +B0ag43LzXog3P9atieDjPyQoa/h1i2dlEVq088bLdd184IU7dS2dSoOo6wDOy0EfEb3 OGcbOefBYLUyi4HP6gOwAodx9ZNpBppM/kKuOxzoGwgMCQmopAsoIhdYfBwt2M1x8av5 yyQw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mlDejjAvun13++xbfPVNKiXElPpmL84yiVZICcNFw0Q=; b=dlu/EcHiCYzhkELpsnLBsl3x5qvHKMjc40DM4K72Z0dADB06sBV44bAFeprUZ5ZbYI V5v34H3vggTdeV/xFdlF2FEHBumjOaLN1icZZyZag2IR7PloMpMmTguqc48nw6lzHzMN fNV5/n5T9BrE59ichP06BvXc3oFeNXV5SrgcD7RGc+0ZAHdD5TUBflwhmVn1QigAZ3Ao vDhiwAFEeoTQSx0e6DoCRU6C2KGz9zIQhyBUJCYYtJP/ocwRIrA24oVQEQvvloT2y2Ky 4vNZSQEMZ+fCq+e5/+qH8LjY5n9+BaYd5QFmkQasj2u3CY2dpeNvP/QsE6AzcyyBr8hQ WNlA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532n28VOInc4v3YLtY264uPRF0V8NcIOTjCiCX9gMFa9TRs2V4NR Z3QknxSI+bHblSL1NBJyoeqlRpSIt5WT/vPjrpAwOgQPXYI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz3t2LzbvXy3kBd3jeFSjUAjdU2gGLVoLdkrlx6SXqDeUVfChlTCxqkGULJ77XGhTpHASGQjRBiNDw0Cbss4wo= X-Received: by 2002:a92:ce02:: with SMTP id b2mr33850592ilo.210.1635990050294; Wed, 03 Nov 2021 18:40:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <0aa050c0-fa95-a4cd-bb58-ba3dfef8146d@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <0aa050c0-fa95-a4cd-bb58-ba3dfef8146d@linux.vnet.ibm.com> From: fwefew 4t4tg <7532yahoo@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 21:40:39 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: If or how one gets an IP address associated with a vfio-pci bound NIC To: David Christensen Cc: users@dpdk.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cdd09705cfec9db2" X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: users-bounces@dpdk.org --000000000000cdd09705cfec9db2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > David wrote: > >I don't think you understand the intent behind the DPDK framework. > > Thank you. Indeed I stand corrected. Associating an IP address with the DPDK NIC works from a bad frame on the problem. I'd appreciate one additional bit of information if possible. Once the DPDK NIC is bound to vfio-pci the DPDK Linux manual at https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/linux_gsg/linux_drivers.html#vfio mentions setup steps including: Create the desired number of VF devices echo 2 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/0000:86:00.0/sriov_numvfs My question: what is the upper bound on the number of VF devices? What's the thinking process? For example, maybe one of these approaches makes sense? - VF device count is bound from above by the number or RX/TX queues - VF device count is bound from above by the amount of on-NIC memory - VF device count is bound from above by manufacturer. Each NIC has some max; read specs - VF device count is like the number of ports on a UNIX: 1000s are available and what you need depends on software: how many concurrent connections are needed? DPDK must have an API that programatically discovers the PFs and VFs per PF. Finally: is a VF device duplex (sends and receives)? Or just RX or just TX only? Thank you. --000000000000cdd09705cfec9db2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
David wrote:
>I don't think you understand the= intent behind the DPDK framework.

Thank you. Ind= eed I stand corrected. Associating an IP address with the DPDK NIC works fr= om a bad frame on the problem.

I'd appreciate one additio= nal bit of information if possible. Once the DPDK NIC is bound to vfio-pci = the DPDK Linux manual at
https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/linux_gsg/linux_driv= ers.html#vfio mentions setup steps including:

Create the desired= number of VF devices
echo 2 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/0000:86:00.0/sr= iov_numvfs

My question: what is the upper bound on the number of VF = devices? What's the thinking process? For example,
maybe one of thes= e approaches makes sense?

- VF device count is bound from above by t= he number or RX/TX queues
- VF device count is bound from above by the a= mount=C2=A0of on-NIC memory
- VF device count is bound from above by man= ufacturer. Each NIC has some max; read specs
- VF device count is like the number of ports on a UNIX: 1000s are availa= ble and what you need depends on software: how many concurrent connections = are needed?

DPDK must have an API that programatically=C2=A0discover= s the PFs and VFs per PF.

Finally: is a VF device duplex (sends and = receives)? Or just RX or just TX only?=C2=A0

Thank you.
--000000000000cdd09705cfec9db2--