From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E6CB106A for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 12:42:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Jan 2017 03:42:15 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,238,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="213876153" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.38]) ([10.237.220.38]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Jan 2017 03:42:13 -0800 To: "JOSHI, KAUSTUBH (KAUSTUBH)" , John Fastabend References: <4341B239C0EFF9468EE453F9E9F4604D3C5CA3DA@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <586D647A.5040607@research.att.com> <4341B239C0EFF9468EE453F9E9F4604D3C5D9598@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <58795CE3.4080403@gmail.com> <6FE891CC-F927-4719-B7F8-BCF8EB4DEF9F@research.att.com> Cc: "Chen, Jing D" , Vincent JARDIN , "DANIELS, EDWARD S (EDWARD)" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "ZELEZNIAK, ALEX" , "Fastabend, John R" From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: <0e2d4fa0-cba6-7190-56cd-5ce757c6cfd9@intel.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:42:12 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6FE891CC-F927-4719-B7F8-BCF8EB4DEF9F@research.att.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 00/29] Support VFD and DPDK PF + kernel VF on i40e 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: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:42:16 -0000 On 1/13/2017 11:49 PM, JOSHI, KAUSTUBH (KAUSTUBH) wrote: > John, > > Thanks for comments. To answer a specific question you raised: > >> Open question for me on this though is the PF in these SRIOV cases >> ever being used by DPDK datapath or is it just being leveraged for >> configuration with primarily control traffic? > > In our case, the answer is yes. We intend to use the PF through DPDK to house a high speed packet mirror function for capturing packet traces from VFs (for ops etc). > > However, in theory, this *can* be done through an extra VF as well, so I didn't bring up that particular point as being a deciding factor in this debate. Is it valid use case to run DPDK enabled virtual switch on PF? I believe this is something you can't move to an extra VF? > >> On Jan 13, 2017, at 6:04 PM, John Fastabend wrote: >> >> Open question for me on this though is the PF in these SRIOV cases >> ever being used by DPDK datapath or is it just being leveraged for >> configuration with primarily control traffic?