[dpdk-dev] vhost [query] : support for multiple ports and non VMDQ devices in vhost switch

[dpdk-dev] vhost [query] : support for multiple ports and non VMDQ devices in vhost switch

[Pankaj Chauhan]

Hi,

I am working on an NXP platform where we intend to use user space vhost 
switch (examples/vhost) as backend for VIRTIO devices. But there are two 
limitations in current vhost-switch (examples/vhost)that are restricting 
my use case:

1. The vhost-switch application is tightly integrated with Intel VMDQ. 
Since my device doesn't have VMDQ i can not use this application directly.

2. The vhost-switch application supports only one external or physical 
port (non virtio devices), but my requirement is to have multiple 
physical ports and multiple virtio devices.

In summary my requirement is to do whatever vhost-switch is doing, in 
addition to that add support for following:

1. support devices that don't have VMDQ.
2. Support multiple physical ports.

I need suggestions on the approach i should take: whether to add support 
of above mentioned in existing vhost-switch (examples/vhost) or write 
another application (based on librte_vhost only) to support my requirements.

I'll work on it after the suggestion i get from the list, and send the 
RFC patch.

Thanks,
Pankaj

Re: [dpdk-dev] vhost [query] : support for multiple ports and non VMDQ devices in vhost switch

[Yuanhan Liu]

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 04:42:33PM +0530, Pankaj Chauhan wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am working on an NXP platform where we intend to use user space vhost
> switch (examples/vhost) as backend for VIRTIO devices. But there are two
> limitations in current vhost-switch (examples/vhost)that are restricting my
> use case:
> 
> 1. The vhost-switch application is tightly integrated with Intel VMDQ. Since
> my device doesn't have VMDQ i can not use this application directly.

Sorry being late (I was on biz trip last week).

Yes, a vhost example should not do that. We have an internal TODO to
remove it. Actually, to make it optional, and Jianfeng was working on
that. Well, seems that you two have already had some discussions.

> 2. The vhost-switch application supports only one external or physical port
> (non virtio devices), but my requirement is to have multiple physical ports
> and multiple virtio devices.

What are you going to achieve? BTW, have you tried testpmd (with vhost-pmd)?
I'm with impression that it might be a better option to you.

	--yliu

> In summary my requirement is to do whatever vhost-switch is doing, in
> addition to that add support for following:
> 
> 1. support devices that don't have VMDQ.
> 2. Support multiple physical ports.
> 
> I need suggestions on the approach i should take: whether to add support of
> above mentioned in existing vhost-switch (examples/vhost) or write another
> application (based on librte_vhost only) to support my requirements.
> 
> I'll work on it after the suggestion i get from the list, and send the RFC
> patch.
> 
> Thanks,
> Pankaj
> 

Re: [dpdk-dev] vhost [query] : support for multiple ports and non VMDQ devices in vhost switch

[Tan, Jianfeng]

Hi,

Please review below proposal of Pankaj and myself after an offline 
discussion. (Pankaj, please correct me if I'm going somewhere wrong).

a. Remove HW dependent option, --strip-vlan, because different kinds of 
NICs behave differently. It's a bug fix.
b. Abstract switching logic into a framework, so that we can develop 
different kinds of switching logics. In this phase, we will have two 
switching logics: (1) a simple software-based mac learning switching; 
(2) VMDQ based switching. Any other advanced switching logics can be 
proposed based on this framework.
c. Merge tep_termination example vxlan as a switching logic of the 
framework.

To be decided:
d. Support multiple physical ports.
e. Keep the current way to use vhost lib directly or use vhost pmd instead.

On 8/16/2016 10:56 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 04:42:33PM +0530, Pankaj Chauhan wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am working on an NXP platform where we intend to use user space vhost
>> switch (examples/vhost) as backend for VIRTIO devices. But there are two
>> limitations in current vhost-switch (examples/vhost)that are restricting my
>> use case:
>>
>> 1. The vhost-switch application is tightly integrated with Intel VMDQ. Since
>> my device doesn't have VMDQ i can not use this application directly.
> Sorry being late (I was on biz trip last week).
>
> Yes, a vhost example should not do that. We have an internal TODO to
> remove it. Actually, to make it optional, and Jianfeng was working on
> that. Well, seems that you two have already had some discussions.
>
>> 2. The vhost-switch application supports only one external or physical port
>> (non virtio devices), but my requirement is to have multiple physical ports
>> and multiple virtio devices.
> What are you going to achieve? BTW, have you tried testpmd (with vhost-pmd)?

Example testpmd will not allow those complex switching logics.

Thanks,
Jianfeng

> I'm with impression that it might be a better option to you.
>
> 	--yliu
>
>> In summary my requirement is to do whatever vhost-switch is doing, in
>> addition to that add support for following:
>>
>> 1. support devices that don't have VMDQ.
>> 2. Support multiple physical ports.
>>
>> I need suggestions on the approach i should take: whether to add support of
>> above mentioned in existing vhost-switch (examples/vhost) or write another
>> application (based on librte_vhost only) to support my requirements.
>>
>> I'll work on it after the suggestion i get from the list, and send the RFC
>> patch.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Pankaj
>>

Re: [dpdk-dev] vhost [query] : support for multiple ports and non VMDQ devices in vhost switch

[Pankaj Chauhan]

On 8/16/2016 8:26 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 04:42:33PM +0530, Pankaj Chauhan wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am working on an NXP platform where we intend to use user space vhost
>> switch (examples/vhost) as backend for VIRTIO devices. But there are two
>> limitations in current vhost-switch (examples/vhost)that are restricting my
>> use case:
>>
>> 1. The vhost-switch application is tightly integrated with Intel VMDQ. Since
>> my device doesn't have VMDQ i can not use this application directly.
>
> Sorry being late (I was on biz trip last week).
>
> Yes, a vhost example should not do that. We have an internal TODO to
> remove it. Actually, to make it optional, and Jianfeng was working on
> that. Well, seems that you two have already had some discussions.

Yes I had a discussion with Jianfeng and he has sent the work items on 
the list.
>
>> 2. The vhost-switch application supports only one external or physical port
>> (non virtio devices), but my requirement is to have multiple physical ports
>> and multiple virtio devices.
>
> What are you going to achieve? BTW, have you tried testpmd (with vhost-pmd)?
> I'm with impression that it might be a better option to you.
>
> 	--yliu
My use case is that my machine/board which is not sitting as end node of 
network but somewhere in between like an router. So the traffic looks 
something like this:

Physical port 1 -> Enter VM(s) through virtio -> exit from physical port 2

For above use case i need a vhost-back-end which supports multiple 
physical ports.

Thanks for the suggestion of vhost-pmd ( i was not aware of that), i'll 
explore possibility of using it for my use case of multiple physical ports.

thanks,
Pankaj

>

Re: [dpdk-dev] vhost [query] : support for multiple ports and non VMDQ devices in vhost switch

[Maxime Coquelin]

Hi Jianfeng,

On 08/17/2016 04:33 AM, Tan, Jianfeng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please review below proposal of Pankaj and myself after an offline
> discussion. (Pankaj, please correct me if I'm going somewhere wrong).
>
> a. Remove HW dependent option, --strip-vlan, because different kinds of
> NICs behave differently. It's a bug fix.
> b. Abstract switching logic into a framework, so that we can develop
> different kinds of switching logics. In this phase, we will have two
> switching logics: (1) a simple software-based mac learning switching;
> (2) VMDQ based switching. Any other advanced switching logics can be
> proposed based on this framework.
> c. Merge tep_termination example vxlan as a switching logic of the
> framework.

I was also thinking of making physical port optional and add MAC learning,
so this is all good for me.

Let me know if I can help in implementation, I'll be happy to
contribute.

> To be decided:
> d. Support multiple physical ports.
> e. Keep the current way to use vhost lib directly or use vhost pmd instead.
Do you see advantages of using vhost lib directly vs. pmd?
Wouldn't using vhost pmd make achieving zero-copy harder?
(I'm not sure, I didn't investigate the topic much for now).

Also, if we use pmd directly, then it would no more be a vhost switch
only, as it could potentially be used with physical NICs also.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Maxime

> On 8/16/2016 10:56 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 04:42:33PM +0530, Pankaj Chauhan wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am working on an NXP platform where we intend to use user space vhost
>>> switch (examples/vhost) as backend for VIRTIO devices. But there are two
>>> limitations in current vhost-switch (examples/vhost)that are
>>> restricting my
>>> use case:
>>>
>>> 1. The vhost-switch application is tightly integrated with Intel
>>> VMDQ. Since
>>> my device doesn't have VMDQ i can not use this application directly.
>> Sorry being late (I was on biz trip last week).
>>
>> Yes, a vhost example should not do that. We have an internal TODO to
>> remove it. Actually, to make it optional, and Jianfeng was working on
>> that. Well, seems that you two have already had some discussions.
>>
>>> 2. The vhost-switch application supports only one external or
>>> physical port
>>> (non virtio devices), but my requirement is to have multiple physical
>>> ports
>>> and multiple virtio devices.
>> What are you going to achieve? BTW, have you tried testpmd (with
>> vhost-pmd)?
>
> Example testpmd will not allow those complex switching logics.
>
> Thanks,
> Jianfeng
>
>> I'm with impression that it might be a better option to you.
>>
>>     --yliu
>>
>>> In summary my requirement is to do whatever vhost-switch is doing, in
>>> addition to that add support for following:
>>>
>>> 1. support devices that don't have VMDQ.
>>> 2. Support multiple physical ports.
>>>
>>> I need suggestions on the approach i should take: whether to add
>>> support of
>>> above mentioned in existing vhost-switch (examples/vhost) or write
>>> another
>>> application (based on librte_vhost only) to support my requirements.
>>>
>>> I'll work on it after the suggestion i get from the list, and send
>>> the RFC
>>> patch.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Pankaj
>>>
>

Re: [dpdk-dev] vhost [query] : support for multiple ports and non VMDQ devices in vhost switch

[Tan, Jianfeng]

Hi Maxime,

On 8/17/2016 7:18 PM, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> Hi Jianfeng,
>
> On 08/17/2016 04:33 AM, Tan, Jianfeng wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please review below proposal of Pankaj and myself after an offline
>> discussion. (Pankaj, please correct me if I'm going somewhere wrong).
>>
>> a. Remove HW dependent option, --strip-vlan, because different kinds of
>> NICs behave differently. It's a bug fix.
>> b. Abstract switching logic into a framework, so that we can develop
>> different kinds of switching logics. In this phase, we will have two
>> switching logics: (1) a simple software-based mac learning switching;
>> (2) VMDQ based switching. Any other advanced switching logics can be
>> proposed based on this framework.
>> c. Merge tep_termination example vxlan as a switching logic of the
>> framework.
>
> I was also thinking of making physical port optional and add MAC 
> learning,
> so this is all good for me.

To make it clear, we are not proposing to eliminate physical port, 
instead, we just eliminate the binding of VMDQ and virtio ports, 
superseding it with a MAC learning switching.

>
> Let me know if I can help in implementation, I'll be happy to
> contribute.

Thank you for participating. Currently, I'm working on item a (will be a 
quick and simple fix). Pankaj is working on item b (which would be a 
huge change). Item c is depending on item b. So let's wait RFC patch 
from Pankaj and see what we can help.

>
>> To be decided:
>> d. Support multiple physical ports.
>> e. Keep the current way to use vhost lib directly or use vhost pmd 
>> instead.
> Do you see advantages of using vhost lib directly vs. pmd?
> Wouldn't using vhost pmd make achieving zero-copy harder?
> (I'm not sure, I didn't investigate the topic much for now).

Yes, by using vhost lib, we can add back the removed feature zero-copy. 
But my understanding is zero-copy (nic-to-vm or vm-to-nic) or delayed 
copy (vm-to-vm) would be great and common features, which should be 
integrated into vhost lib and enabled in vhost pmd, so that all 
applications can benefit from it. And in fact, Yuanhan is working on the 
delayed copy now. An exception is rx-side-zero-copy, I don't know if 
it's common enough to be integrated in a vhost lib, because it'll 
require hardware queue binding.

Besides, vhost pmd would be easier to use than vhost lib (personal 
opinion). Secondly, vhost pmd would be more clear in logic, 1:1:1 
mapping among vhost port, unix socket path, and virtio port. Thirdly, by 
using vhost pmd, we can treat vhost ports the way of physical ports, 
otherwise, we use different API to receive/transmit packets.

>
> Also, if we use pmd directly, then it would no more be a vhost switch
> only, as it could potentially be used with physical NICs also.

You mean we are building a switch instead of vhost switch? Yes, a switch 
can switch packets between virtio-virtio and virtio-physical nic.

Thanks,
Jianfeng

>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Maxime

Re: [dpdk-dev] vhost [query] : support for multiple ports and non VMDQ devices in vhost switch

[Maxime Coquelin]

Hi,

On 08/18/2016 04:35 AM, Tan, Jianfeng wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
>
> On 8/17/2016 7:18 PM, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>> Hi Jianfeng,
>>
>> On 08/17/2016 04:33 AM, Tan, Jianfeng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Please review below proposal of Pankaj and myself after an offline
>>> discussion. (Pankaj, please correct me if I'm going somewhere wrong).
>>>
>>> a. Remove HW dependent option, --strip-vlan, because different kinds of
>>> NICs behave differently. It's a bug fix.
>>> b. Abstract switching logic into a framework, so that we can develop
>>> different kinds of switching logics. In this phase, we will have two
>>> switching logics: (1) a simple software-based mac learning switching;
>>> (2) VMDQ based switching. Any other advanced switching logics can be
>>> proposed based on this framework.
>>> c. Merge tep_termination example vxlan as a switching logic of the
>>> framework.
>>
>> I was also thinking of making physical port optional and add MAC
>> learning,
>> so this is all good for me.
>
> To make it clear, we are not proposing to eliminate physical port,
> instead, we just eliminate the binding of VMDQ and virtio ports,
> superseding it with a MAC learning switching.

So you confirm we could have setup with only VMs, and no physical
NIC? That's what I meant when saying "making physical port optional".

>
>>
>> Let me know if I can help in implementation, I'll be happy to
>> contribute.
>
> Thank you for participating. Currently, I'm working on item a (will be a
> quick and simple fix). Pankaj is working on item b (which would be a
> huge change). Item c is depending on item b. So let's wait RFC patch
> from Pankaj and see what we can help.

Good, let's wait for Pankaj's RFC.

>
>>
>>> To be decided:
>>> d. Support multiple physical ports.
>>> e. Keep the current way to use vhost lib directly or use vhost pmd
>>> instead.
>> Do you see advantages of using vhost lib directly vs. pmd?
>> Wouldn't using vhost pmd make achieving zero-copy harder?
>> (I'm not sure, I didn't investigate the topic much for now).
>
> Yes, by using vhost lib, we can add back the removed feature zero-copy.
> But my understanding is zero-copy (nic-to-vm or vm-to-nic) or delayed
> copy (vm-to-vm) would be great and common features, which should be
> integrated into vhost lib and enabled in vhost pmd, so that all
> applications can benefit from it. And in fact, Yuanhan is working on the
> delayed copy now. An exception is rx-side-zero-copy, I don't know if
> it's common enough to be integrated in a vhost lib, because it'll
> require hardware queue binding.

Ok, I'm interrested in knowing how vm-to-vm delayed copy will be
implemented.

> Besides, vhost pmd would be easier to use than vhost lib (personal
> opinion). Secondly, vhost pmd would be more clear in logic, 1:1:1
> mapping among vhost port, unix socket path, and virtio port. Thirdly, by
> using vhost pmd, we can treat vhost ports the way of physical ports,
> otherwise, we use different API to receive/transmit packets.

I'm 100% aligned with you on this, the vhost pmd makes things more
standard, so more flexible.

>>
>> Also, if we use pmd directly, then it would no more be a vhost switch
>> only, as it could potentially be used with physical NICs also.
>
> You mean we are building a switch instead of vhost switch? Yes, a switch
> can switch packets between virtio-virtio and virtio-physical nic.

And physical-physical also, as we will be standard API with the
vhost-pmd, nothing will prevent using it with only physical switches,
no?

Thanks,
Maxime

>
> Thanks,
> Jianfeng
>
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Maxime
>

Re: [dpdk-dev] vhost [query] : support for multiple ports and non VMDQ devices in vhost switch

[Yuanhan Liu]

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 03:54:21PM +0530, Pankaj Chauhan wrote:
> My use case is that my machine/board which is not sitting as end node of
> network but somewhere in between like an router. So the traffic looks
> something like this:
> 
> Physical port 1 -> Enter VM(s) through virtio -> exit from physical port 2

I'm not quite sure testpmd has this kind of support or not, routing the
data from a specific port to another specific port. Zhihong might have
the answer.

	--yliu

> For above use case i need a vhost-back-end which supports multiple physical
> ports.
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion of vhost-pmd ( i was not aware of that), i'll
> explore possibility of using it for my use case of multiple physical ports.

Re: [dpdk-dev] vhost [query] : support for multiple ports and non VMDQ devices in vhost switch

[Tan, Jianfeng]

Hi Maxime,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maxime Coquelin [mailto:maxime.coquelin@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 3:43 PM
> To: Tan, Jianfeng; Yuanhan Liu; Pankaj Chauhan
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; hemant.agrawal@nxp.com; shreyansh.jain@nxp.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] vhost [query] : support for multiple ports and non
> VMDQ devices in vhost switch
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 08/18/2016 04:35 AM, Tan, Jianfeng wrote:
> > Hi Maxime,
> >
> > On 8/17/2016 7:18 PM, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> >> Hi Jianfeng,
> >>
> >> On 08/17/2016 04:33 AM, Tan, Jianfeng wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Please review below proposal of Pankaj and myself after an offline
> >>> discussion. (Pankaj, please correct me if I'm going somewhere wrong).
> >>>
> >>> a. Remove HW dependent option, --strip-vlan, because different kinds
> of
> >>> NICs behave differently. It's a bug fix.
> >>> b. Abstract switching logic into a framework, so that we can develop
> >>> different kinds of switching logics. In this phase, we will have two
> >>> switching logics: (1) a simple software-based mac learning switching;
> >>> (2) VMDQ based switching. Any other advanced switching logics can be
> >>> proposed based on this framework.
> >>> c. Merge tep_termination example vxlan as a switching logic of the
> >>> framework.
> >>
> >> I was also thinking of making physical port optional and add MAC
> >> learning,
> >> so this is all good for me.
> >
> > To make it clear, we are not proposing to eliminate physical port,
> > instead, we just eliminate the binding of VMDQ and virtio ports,
> > superseding it with a MAC learning switching.
> 
> So you confirm we could have setup with only VMs, and no physical
> NIC? That's what I meant when saying "making physical port optional".

Yes, this case would be supported too.

> 
> >
> >>
> >> Let me know if I can help in implementation, I'll be happy to
> >> contribute.
> >
> > Thank you for participating. Currently, I'm working on item a (will be a
> > quick and simple fix). Pankaj is working on item b (which would be a
> > huge change). Item c is depending on item b. So let's wait RFC patch
> > from Pankaj and see what we can help.
> 
> Good, let's wait for Pankaj's RFC.
> 
> >
> >>
> >>> To be decided:
> >>> d. Support multiple physical ports.
> >>> e. Keep the current way to use vhost lib directly or use vhost pmd
> >>> instead.
> >> Do you see advantages of using vhost lib directly vs. pmd?
> >> Wouldn't using vhost pmd make achieving zero-copy harder?
> >> (I'm not sure, I didn't investigate the topic much for now).
> >
> > Yes, by using vhost lib, we can add back the removed feature zero-copy.
> > But my understanding is zero-copy (nic-to-vm or vm-to-nic) or delayed
> > copy (vm-to-vm) would be great and common features, which should be
> > integrated into vhost lib and enabled in vhost pmd, so that all
> > applications can benefit from it. And in fact, Yuanhan is working on the
> > delayed copy now. An exception is rx-side-zero-copy, I don't know if
> > it's common enough to be integrated in a vhost lib, because it'll
> > require hardware queue binding.
> 
> Ok, I'm interrested in knowing how vm-to-vm delayed copy will be
> implemented.
> 
> > Besides, vhost pmd would be easier to use than vhost lib (personal
> > opinion). Secondly, vhost pmd would be more clear in logic, 1:1:1
> > mapping among vhost port, unix socket path, and virtio port. Thirdly, by
> > using vhost pmd, we can treat vhost ports the way of physical ports,
> > otherwise, we use different API to receive/transmit packets.
> 
> I'm 100% aligned with you on this, the vhost pmd makes things more
> standard, so more flexible.
> 
> >>
> >> Also, if we use pmd directly, then it would no more be a vhost switch
> >> only, as it could potentially be used with physical NICs also.
> >
> > You mean we are building a switch instead of vhost switch? Yes, a switch
> > can switch packets between virtio-virtio and virtio-physical nic.
> 
> And physical-physical also, as we will be standard API with the
> vhost-pmd, nothing will prevent using it with only physical switches,
> no?

Oh yes, I agree.

Thanks,
Jianfeng

> 
> Thanks,
> Maxime
> 
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jianfeng
> >
> >>
> >> Any thoughts?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Maxime
> >

Re: [dpdk-dev] vhost [query] : support for multiple ports and non VMDQ devices in vhost switch

[Thomas Monjalon]

2016-08-18 10:36, Tan, Jianfeng:
> From: Maxime Coquelin [mailto:maxime.coquelin@redhat.com]
> > > On 8/17/2016 7:18 PM, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> > >> On 08/17/2016 04:33 AM, Tan, Jianfeng wrote:

> > >>> b. Abstract switching logic into a framework, so that we can develop
> > >>> different kinds of switching logics. In this phase, we will have two
> > >>> switching logics: (1) a simple software-based mac learning switching;
> > >>> (2) VMDQ based switching. Any other advanced switching logics can be
> > >>> proposed based on this framework.
> > >>> c. Merge tep_termination example vxlan as a switching logic of the
> > >>> framework.
[...]
> > >>> To be decided:
> > >>> d. Support multiple physical ports.
[...]
> > >> Also, if we use pmd directly, then it would no more be a vhost switch
> > >> only, as it could potentially be used with physical NICs also.
> > >
> > > You mean we are building a switch instead of vhost switch? Yes, a switch
> > > can switch packets between virtio-virtio and virtio-physical nic.
> > 
> > And physical-physical also, as we will be standard API with the
> > vhost-pmd, nothing will prevent using it with only physical switches,
> > no?
> 
> Oh yes, I agree.

It looks to be a nice project.
I think you should start a new git repository in DPDK apps:
	http://dpdk.org/browse/
And we could remove tep_termination and vhost examples.

Re: [dpdk-dev] vhost [query] : support for multiple ports and non VMDQ devices in vhost switch

[Maxime Coquelin]

On 08/18/2016 04:35 AM, Tan, Jianfeng wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
>
> On 8/17/2016 7:18 PM, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>> Hi Jianfeng,
>>
>> On 08/17/2016 04:33 AM, Tan, Jianfeng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Please review below proposal of Pankaj and myself after an offline
>>> discussion. (Pankaj, please correct me if I'm going somewhere wrong).
>>>
>>> a. Remove HW dependent option, --strip-vlan, because different kinds of
>>> NICs behave differently. It's a bug fix.
>>> b. Abstract switching logic into a framework, so that we can develop
>>> different kinds of switching logics. In this phase, we will have two
>>> switching logics: (1) a simple software-based mac learning switching;
>>> (2) VMDQ based switching. Any other advanced switching logics can be
>>> proposed based on this framework.
>>> c. Merge tep_termination example vxlan as a switching logic of the
>>> framework.
>>
>> I was also thinking of making physical port optional and add MAC
>> learning,
>> so this is all good for me.
>
> To make it clear, we are not proposing to eliminate physical port,
> instead, we just eliminate the binding of VMDQ and virtio ports,
> superseding it with a MAC learning switching.
>
>>
>> Let me know if I can help in implementation, I'll be happy to
>> contribute.
>
> Thank you for participating. Currently, I'm working on item a (will be a
> quick and simple fix). Pankaj is working on item b (which would be a
> huge change). Item c is depending on item b. So let's wait RFC patch
> from Pankaj and see what we can help.

Pankaj, so I organize myself , do you have an idea of when the RFC
patch will be available?

Thanks,
Maxime

Re: [dpdk-dev] vhost [query] : support for multiple ports and non VMDQ devices in vhost switch

[Pankaj Chauhan]

On 8/24/2016 12:58 PM, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>
>
> On 08/18/2016 04:35 AM, Tan, Jianfeng wrote:
>> Hi Maxime,
>>
>> On 8/17/2016 7:18 PM, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>>> Hi Jianfeng,
>>>
>>> On 08/17/2016 04:33 AM, Tan, Jianfeng wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Please review below proposal of Pankaj and myself after an offline
>>>> discussion. (Pankaj, please correct me if I'm going somewhere wrong).
>>>>
>>>> a. Remove HW dependent option, --strip-vlan, because different kinds of
>>>> NICs behave differently. It's a bug fix.
>>>> b. Abstract switching logic into a framework, so that we can develop
>>>> different kinds of switching logics. In this phase, we will have two
>>>> switching logics: (1) a simple software-based mac learning switching;
>>>> (2) VMDQ based switching. Any other advanced switching logics can be
>>>> proposed based on this framework.
>>>> c. Merge tep_termination example vxlan as a switching logic of the
>>>> framework.
>>>
>>> I was also thinking of making physical port optional and add MAC
>>> learning,
>>> so this is all good for me.
>>
>> To make it clear, we are not proposing to eliminate physical port,
>> instead, we just eliminate the binding of VMDQ and virtio ports,
>> superseding it with a MAC learning switching.
>>
>>>
>>> Let me know if I can help in implementation, I'll be happy to
>>> contribute.
>>
>> Thank you for participating. Currently, I'm working on item a (will be a
>> quick and simple fix). Pankaj is working on item b (which would be a
>> huge change). Item c is depending on item b. So let's wait RFC patch
>> from Pankaj and see what we can help.
>
> Pankaj, so I organize myself , do you have an idea of when the RFC
> patch will be available?

I am almost finishing the first version of RFC patch set, hoping to send 
it today itself.

Thanks,
Pankaj
>
> Thanks,
> Maxime
>