Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] enhancement to i40e PF host driver

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] enhancement to i40e PF host driver

[Vincent JARDIN]

Thanks for this update.

Still, I would like to get good arguments why DPDK should be a PF 
because it creates fragmentations. Please, first, let's reply to:
   http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-December/053107.html

Having both Linux and DPDK being PF, it means that we double the 
combinations so we double the issues.

The following should be used instead: assuming you want to use DPDK PF 
for dataplane feature, an alternative is,
    - configure one VF on the hypervisor from Linux's PF, let's name if
VF_forPFtraffic, see
         http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/howto/flow_bifurcation.html
    - have no (or few IOs) to the PF's queue
    - assign the traffic to all VF_forPFtraffic's queues of the hypervisor,
    - run DPDK into the hypervisor's VF_forPFtraffic

Thank you,
   Vincent

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] enhancement to i40e PF host driver

[Chen, Jing D]

Hi, Vincent,

Since original patch set are split into 2 different patches, can
we discuss in this thread?
Attach original discussion below. Sorry for top-post.

> 
> Le 22/12/2016 à 09:10, Chen, Jing D a écrit :
> > In the meanwhile, we have some test models ongoing to validate 
> > combination of Linux and DPDK drivers for VF and PF. We'll fully 
> > support
> below 4 cases going forward.
> > 1. DPDK PF + DPDK VF
> > 2. DPDK PF + Linux VF
> 
> + DPDK PF + FreeBSD VF
> + DPDK PF + Windows VF
> + DPDK PF + OS xyz VF
> 

If all drivers follow same API spec, what's the problem here?
What extra DPDK PF effort you observed?

> > 3. Linux PF + DPDK VF
> > 4. Linux PF + Linux VF (it's not our scope)
> 
> So, you confirm the issue: having DPDK becoming a PF, even if SRIOV 
> protocol includes version-ing, it doubles the combinatory cases.

If extended functions are needed, the answer is yes.
That's not a big problem, right? I have several workarounds/approaches to support extended funcs while following original API spec. I can fix it in this release. In order to have a mature solution, I left it here for further implementation.

> 
> >
> > After applied this patch, i've done below test without observing
> compatibility issue.
> > 1. DPDK PF + DPDK VF (middle of 16.11 and 17.02 code base). PF to 
> > support
> API 1.0 while VF
> >     to support API 1.1/1.0
> > 2. DPDK PF + Linux VF 1.5.14. PF to support 1.0, while Linux to 
> > support 1.1/1.0
> >
> > Linux PF + DPDK VF has been tested with 1.0 API long time ago. There 
> > is some test activities ongoing.
> >
> > Finally, please give strong reasons to support your NAC.
> 
> I feel bad because I do recognize the strong and hard work that you 
> have done on this PF development, but I feel we need first to assess 
> if DPDK should become a PF or not. I know ixgbe did open the path and 
> that they are some historical DPDK PF supports in Intel NICs, but 
> before we generalize it, we have to make sure we are not turning this 
> DataPlane development Kit into a ControlPlane Driver Kit that we are 
> scared to upstream into Linux kernel. Even if "DPDK is not Linux", it 
> does not mean that Linux should be ignored. In case of DPDK on other OS, same, their PF could be extended too.
> 

Thanks for the recognition of our work on PF driver. :)

> So currently, yes, I do keep a nack't
> 
> Since DPDK PF features can be into Linux PF features too and since 
> Linux (and other hypervisors) has already some tools to manage PF (see 
> iproute2, etc.), why should we have an other management path with DPDK?
> DPDK is aimed to be a Dataplane Development kit, not a 
> management/control plane driver kit.

Before we debated on Dataplane and ControPlane, can you answer me a question, why we have generic filter API? Is it a API for dataplane?

I can't imagine that we'll have to say 'you need to use Linux PF' driver when users want to deploy PF + VF cases. Why we can't provide an alternative option. they are not exclusive and users can decide which combination is better for them. 
The reason why we developed DPDK PF host driver is we have requirements from users. Our motivation is simple, there are requirements, we satisfy them.

Sorry, you NACK can't convince me.

> 
> Assuming you want to use DPDK PF for dataplane feature, that could be 
> OK then, using:
>    - configure one VF on the hypervisor from Linux's PF, let's name if 
> VF_forPFtraffic, see http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/howto/flow_bifurcation.html
>    - have no (or few IO)s to the PF's queue
>    - assign the traffic to all VF_forPFtraffic's queues of the hypervisor,
>    - run DPDK into the hypervisor's VF_forPFtraffic
> 
> Doing so, we get the same benefit of running DPDK over PF or running 
> DPDK over VF_forPFtraffic, don't we? It is a benefit of:
>    http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/howto/flow_bifurcation.html
> 
> Thank you,
>    Vincent
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vincent JARDIN [mailto:vincent.jardin@6wind.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 23, 2016 8:53 PM
> To: Chen, Jing D <jing.d.chen@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing
> <jingjing.wu@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] enhancement to i40e PF host driver
> 
> Thanks for this update.
> 
> Still, I would like to get good arguments why DPDK should be a PF because it
> creates fragmentations. Please, first, let's reply to:
>    http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-December/053107.html
> 
> Having both Linux and DPDK being PF, it means that we double the
> combinations so we double the issues.
> 
> The following should be used instead: assuming you want to use DPDK PF for
> dataplane feature, an alternative is,
>     - configure one VF on the hypervisor from Linux's PF, let's name if
> VF_forPFtraffic, see
>          http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/howto/flow_bifurcation.html
>     - have no (or few IOs) to the PF's queue
>     - assign the traffic to all VF_forPFtraffic's queues of the hypervisor,
>     - run DPDK into the hypervisor's VF_forPFtraffic
> 
> Thank you,
>    Vincent

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] enhancement to i40e PF host driver

[Chen Jing D(Mark)]

Current PF host driver can serve DPDK VF well, but the
implementation is not complete to support Linux VF,
even both DPDK VF and Linux VF use same API set.

This patch set made below changes:
1. Make an enhancement on interface to serve VF, so
   both Linux and DPDK VF can be well served.
2. Change API version number so both DPDK and Linux
   VF can recognize and select proper command and
   data structure to request service. But the
   sacrifice is DPDK VF can't identify host driver
   (Linux or DPDK) and extended function provided
   in DPDK PF host driver can't be used.
   This situation will change after negotiate with
   Linux maintainer to provide a better mechanism
   to identify both PF and VF function.

Chen Jing D(Mark) (4):
  net/i40e: change version number to support Linux VF
  net/i40e: return correct VSI id
  net/i40e: parse more VF parameter and configure
  net/i40e: support Linux VF to configure IRQ link list

 drivers/net/i40e/i40e_pf.c |  174 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 1 files changed, 156 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

-- 
1.7.7.6