From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: bharath paulraj <bharathpaul@gmail.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Paulraj, Bharath" <bpaulraj@idirect.net>
Subject: Re: Reg: Link Bonding of VFs and PF admin down
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 08:31:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230329083126.59c302f3@hermes.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACfjA+mxao7A0Mo31S-TPE3kTRp6AtabZc+c5e5rf+WoWER8rA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 12:27:16 +0530
bharath paulraj <bharathpaul@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Team,
>
> I have two X710 NICs in the hypervisor and created the VFs on those NICs.
> PF is managed by the Linux kernel, while the VF is managed by DPDK. I am
> using the "test-pmd" application to test the bonding functionality,
> especially ACTIVE-BACKUP mode.
> I have created the bond interface and added the slaves in such a way that
> the one VFs from each of the PF is added to the bond interface. The goal is
> to achieve uninterrupted traffic flow even when one of the PF is down.
> As part of my testing, I made one of the PF admin down using the command
> "ip link set <interface> down". Even after waiting for a few minutes, the
> link status is not propagated to the VF, and the link bonding still takes
> the PF which is down as the primary slave and tries to send the packet out
> of that interface.
>
> While debugging I found out that the link status of VF is still up. Is this
> the expected behaviour? As per the link:
> https://www.intel.in/content/www/in/en/support/articles/000036776/ethernet-products.html
> it is the expected behaviour. It may work well if the use case is VF-to-VF
> communication. But if the use case is to communicate to the other system -
> (Switch/Routers), then this behaviour will break the link bonding
> functionality, as the peer's interface would be operationally down, once
> the PF is made admin down.
>
>
> My use case: PF is managed by Linux kernel is connected to the external
> Router, VF is added to the VM, and the DPDK application is supposed to
> send/read the packet from the VF.
Link state is controlled by Linux kernel driver, the DPDK driver
is just reflecting information from the kernel. Talk to the kernel
maintainers and/or Redhat.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-29 15:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-29 6:57 bharath paulraj
2023-03-29 15:31 ` Stephen Hemminger [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230329083126.59c302f3@hermes.local \
--to=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=bharathpaul@gmail.com \
--cc=bpaulraj@idirect.net \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).