From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ie0-x229.google.com (mail-ie0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::229]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1E7558D6 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:42:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id ar20so3765525iec.14 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 05:43:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=l72lFtDJtDL6Bt9DFYLxNJsBppHiIbjI/Xi2Qqemj2I=; b=IL+qpeFrUGABSY+cFNxlGQ3t01lhadkHAw0EMDLflndHK7qtZgG30tVmuNBK8c4t2n rlrNsMBwJylGJD33SA8Ur/8nFhcyYXTskxeHyo7zFxrNjbYiBCblNOU/X/0FjsaCGcjV 69hXLUgNfem998lg53V2dw7MEaDKiaeZzP4SeE4VejR/00IBZWbaiggMi914jHJhiD0j +1O2mtLGSpEo3ehff2pQEiGVxxO9iliKsXbs+/i5qiAFbKCeGg0519omzgCmCCZN1O1E nIISD10STj1EzAFu174Johb+CI1agiNu/O/lP+/PFexrxbOObd3efvvFZ+u/GiFapRB3 DUOA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.161.65 with SMTP id mf1mr274171icc.66.1382013821572; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 05:43:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.67.205 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 05:43:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201310161458.55712.thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:43:41 +0300 Message-ID: From: jigsaw To: Prashant Upadhyaya Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] 82599 SR-IOV with passthrough X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 12:42:55 -0000 Hi Prashant, I patched both Intel ixgbe PF driver and DPDK 1.5 VF driver, so that DPDK gets 4 queues in one VF. It works fine with all 4 Tx queues. The only trick is to set proper mac address for all outgoing packets, which must be the same mac as you set to the VF. This trick is described in the release note of DPDK. I wonder whether it makes sense to push this patch to DPDK. Any comments? thx & rgds, -ql On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Prashant Upadhyaya wrote: > Hi Qinglai, > > Why are you using the kernel driver at all. > Use the DPDK driver to control the PF on the host. The guest would commun= icate with the PF on host using mailbox as usual. > Then the changes will be limited to DPDK, isn't it ? > > Regards > -Prashant > > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of jigsaw > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 6:51 PM > To: Thomas Monjalon > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] 82599 SR-IOV with passthrough > > Hi Thomas, > > Thanks for reply. > > The kernel has older version of PF than the one released on sf.net. So I'= m checking the sf.net release. > If the change is limited in DPDK then it is controllable. But now it affe= cts Intel's PF driver, I don't even know how to push the feature to Intel. = The driver on sf.net is a read-only repository, isn't it? It would be painf= ul to maintain another branch of 10G PF driver. > Could Intel give some advice or hints here? > > thx & > rgds, > -Qinglai > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >> 16/10/2013 14:18, jigsaw : >>> Therefore, to add support for multiple queues per VF, we have to at >>> least fix the PF driver, then add support in DPDK's VF driver. >> >> You're right, Linux PF driver have to be updated to properly manage >> multiple queues per VF. Then the guest can be tested with DPDK or with >> Linux driver (ixgbe_vf). >> >> Note that there are 2 versions of Linux driver for ixgbe: kernel.org >> and sourceforge.net (supporting many kernel versions). >> >> -- >> Thomas > > > > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > Please refer to http://www.aricent.com/legal/email_disclaimer.html > for important disclosures regarding this electronic communication. > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D