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 42CEFA053B for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 14:20:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6D631C0B9; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 14:20:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-wr1-f42.google.com (mail-wr1-f42.google.com [209.85.221.42]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CD301C0B5 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 14:20:02 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wr1-f42.google.com with SMTP id a6so7117270wrx.12 for ; Thu, 06 Feb 2020 05:20:02 -0800 (PST) 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=N2lo9qo9em0by65ourCJYaLg3tnpu/TN3WrtiilNzRc=; b=bGx8ywhX6vNTZnCn07dm9HO2zTz9nqeVc07J7gU8B/3Y4buYXso2EdUnScrpwpGEnp j3AFY6QzlaZlsw6laAbjy3IMsJfRfN996v/LPAULxV7mtNJ/PgpWCX7w2RJmJPABlzub W0LKe1fsZ3ocNkZKFZrVaSg9bm9vZnKsPCTGgtqZe1CDm+vx633TvJpIe1OR+crLrkRT QoVaaSztLMfXr3U8hIS9RNABJgRXhxwXeWxHIAUlPYVQyudLcxrVUAGlX/8G+HEjcHpb KDbP7rtd57rab5aqd4uX2pAQw7lfE5O/rqJOE09vcLsFyUo6lJ940hHhgyAAGnabAz6k mVGg== 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=N2lo9qo9em0by65ourCJYaLg3tnpu/TN3WrtiilNzRc=; b=ZXL/yNHrKlK7TNfW9joB0xSNl6n1IZQiKhn+oqh9C+VRTmCcDrM57YwP7fKEJGSMxd HGm5+OVhh8pG4+C8bBwcvi/MonlmEae5klh6Ym3nH5duzL/z3mGzVwOgrERo0x8s1iAX QJnvQSDKGb2jtp6JchBYsPdumvY6uD7E//1IX7UXmCuvPvKN1mS1qaEamdYSWZMal/6B YlNAc9BH2qSV/8WdcGR54tpVN9ZkKyeEh7W7iKCKHzli3OWdnC47/5r39KglH/pbAK+Y iEtU4ODXtxedebulp0sQPbjQ8cKuqXs5f5ik5P7Ie7qQNxT8xu6aPpeAGHm/wFzzohL/ +Zng== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV0lGexglkn7iVd3zJ3/SIaeW5ANQWa98JDfpzGpgJNw3OhdigN XuthMzfNd1e8bW1uVVELObEj0vHZrNsE4h55HDY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyCfxgFYTMlr61x35oR/tWUzEUFWIximqyKLzlxKT+zgnzxtA9R87UNbSqtTTaSbFp+HyeELixOyc30GxCsWBU= X-Received: by 2002:adf:9c8d:: with SMTP id d13mr4026718wre.392.1580995201940; Thu, 06 Feb 2020 05:20:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: madhukar mythri Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 18:49:52 +0530 Message-ID: To: Suchetha p Cc: users@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Generic Virtualization approach of DPDK based application using SR-IOV and PCI Passthrough to be compatible with all Hardware NICs X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: users-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "users" It worked well with "igb_uio" on both X710 and 82599 NIC's with SR-IOV enabled. I had tested with DPDK-18.11 version. Have you enabled the "intel_iommu=3Don" in host Kernel boot parameters ? On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 10:50 PM Suchetha p wrote: > Hi, > > We are trying to bring up KVM based VMs on HP Gen10 Servers running on RH= EL > 7.6 and having Intel X710 NIC's. > > The VMs are also running on RHEL 7.6 and the DPDK version used in the gue= st > application is 18.08. > > Intel DPDK VF drivers (igb_uio) compiled and loaded currently in our VM a= re > not compatible with the Host PF drivers(vfio-pci) for Intel X710 Ethernet > NICs. > > The igb_uio driver may be only compatible with Intel NICs like 82599 as i= t > worked in our lab for HP Gen9 servers running RHEL 7.6 having Intel 82599 > NICs. > > Issues observed with DPDK VF driver igb_uio for Intel X710 NICs: > > The outgoing packets from DPDK application are leaving VM via VF towards > Host=E2=80=99s Physical ports and reaching remote Host=E2=80=99s Physical= ports. > > But the incoming packets from Host=E2=80=99s Physical port are not reachi= ng VM via > VF. > > Could you please confirm whether igb_uio driver is compatible with only > Intel NICs like 82599 ? > > So we had to change PCI device binding to another driver vfio-pci availab= le > in RHEL7. > > But based on the debugging of our DPDK based application with VF driver > vfio-pci on X710 NICs we observed that the incoming packets are VLAN > stripped by HW when the OFFLOAD flags are not set for the same. > > why does X710 NIC VF driver remove the VLAN without RX offload VLAN stri= p > flags set? > > Could you please check and confirm if the unexpected VLAN removal behavio= ur > of X710 NIC VF driver vfio-pci is a known bug? > > We want to generalize DPDK implementation for all HW NICs.Could you pleas= e > clarify if this is achievable with igb_uio or vfio-pci driver ? > > We would appreciate if you could provide your feedback and suggestions > towards generic solution. > > Thanks, > > Suchetha >