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 60AA042865; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 17:31:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB26C40EDF; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 17:31:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pj1-f52.google.com (mail-pj1-f52.google.com [209.85.216.52]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF8DC400D6 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 17:31:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pj1-f52.google.com with SMTP id r7-20020a17090b050700b002404be7920aso14899111pjz.5 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 08:31:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; t=1680103889; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=4Fbt0yRU/UwaCz+HtdOGzdlHxtSnDqd/83CwcpMNNHc=; b=Fq7tg1QKXDf6vcLWJUn4kV242icUx/dab3zthJUtQIEGXX4XDYMd3/bNnpwDLJlY5l 0O7SrJcYhxgN6lkS8S0k6Mexu1L1QyIUoFBRQajBchJLSJcnWd4gb7jKLZ166dd8AZ+K BZkhJX5zjE2rolElD+DJrCGNl0Qvq5EoGFoeallo5yO/iFiGMELHidEfRC0TJ8ZOWJAt SfTgq/aKGvTqpDiGUUd3FuScIMU/29HX9hHDXaue3MAMRNuwxq6V/EgUvgFWdWDdDQgk Y91YV1y53dsBcqsbjp3GLjYvO1yjDalILC86q8Dv/Ju7RNpoVvM3ZZ+4bqDkVfldbYUR jZwA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680103889; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=4Fbt0yRU/UwaCz+HtdOGzdlHxtSnDqd/83CwcpMNNHc=; b=vvwwuudlBfS9rLcalyKulENkJGxkvMUBVA2y9cgzOc6xFJEhlX8R3qHXHkeCLlMOml 6OC5wcz9YD0P4w1E2+RWNBZDEWTj8gxMdOl0FPgBsocEtzQW0j1CuahmHBQ+8mbTQuuw uiImoQ/Gt4PbETqXie2ovhP9wlT9c6mMnszcb/iSprmB0ZRu66Nvexln08TSak4ctia2 T7QZh8lRszgE+wLaWqV0agGc4XPogDYws0BUbV7PTsBV7kfYGfbmpygtFASJ3G3LLC36 SFSk2cgn3OBDAG9vVqVlcqHRv6QY6it9HvtHBGVd2Kg8++HFonWuGXRb8awrostTIPEH fmHw== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dl3ukQoEzRDr+pRvJlu7p5+7/OeUgAOb+RFQ5O/cnUuXUvhmwl fkxXYeNu+8b+NXd5x14WBJjHcQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350bADLxBgyzXZ7JLbb+tBnqg/vJQsCe3QvE5608X0BDghrVDbRT+bwlcwQhtitvRNHu+8T9/YA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:f546:b0:19c:be57:9c82 with SMTP id h6-20020a170902f54600b0019cbe579c82mr24183398plf.65.1680103888765; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 08:31:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.local (204-195-120-218.wavecable.com. [204.195.120.218]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g9-20020a170902934900b0019f1205bdcbsm23111899plp.147.2023.03.29.08.31.28 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 29 Mar 2023 08:31:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 08:31:26 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: bharath paulraj Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Paulraj, Bharath" Subject: Re: Reg: Link Bonding of VFs and PF admin down Message-ID: <20230329083126.59c302f3@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 12:27:16 +0530 bharath paulraj 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 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.