DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Zhou, Danny" <danny.zhou@intel.com>
To: Luke Gorrie <luke@snabb.co>, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
	"Fastabend, John R" <john.r.fastabend@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] bifurcated driver
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:38:04 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <DFDF335405C17848924A094BC35766CF0A9C7545@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA2XHbffNC=KcwFrxkUADpXA7EFYxJYwq8tLzvr-H0aYVd1T9Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hope summary below could answer your questions.

From: lukego@gmail.com [mailto:lukego@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Luke Gorrie
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 7:58 PM
To: Thomas Monjalon
Cc: Zhou, Danny; dev@dpdk.org; Fastabend, John R
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] bifurcated driver

On 5 November 2014 at 14:00, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com<mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>> wrote:
It seems to be close to the bifurcated driver needs.
Not sure if it can solve the security issues if there is no dedicated MMU
in the NIC.

I feel we should sum up pros and cons of
        - igb_uio
        - uio_pci_generic
        - VFIO
        - ibverbs
        - bifurcated driver

I am also curious about the pros and cons of the bifurcated driver compared with SR-IOV.
DZ: I have a slide to compare all of them except for ibverbs, but system does not allows me to paste a captured picture. I can send it to you in a separated email.

What are the practical differences between running a bifurcated driver vs. running SR-IOV mode where the kernel owns the PF and userspace applications own the VFs?
DZ: SRIOV can be treated as a rx/tx queue partition approach following PCIe spec, but it diffs from bifurcated driver from as illustrated below:

a)      On ixgbe, each VF can only have at maximum two rx/tx qpairs, while bifurcated driver supports allocating multiple rx/tx qpairs per user space request.

b)      Each PF/VF has a dedicated MAC address and/or VLAN ID, and L2 switch inside a NIC distributes packets to PF/VF based on MAC address or VLAN ID. While bifurcated driver

builds on top of in_NIC flow director which allows up-to 8K L3/L4 filters (e.g. 5-tuple to rx queue), rather than fixed L2 filter, to distribute traffics to either kernel or user space.

c)       VF does not have dedicated flow director.

Specifically, could I run the ixgbe driver in the kernel (max_vfs=N), control it via ethtool, and then access the queues via userspace VF drivers? If so, how would this differ from the bifurcated driver?
DZ: Yes you can do this. But L3/L4 filters you setup to PF (VF does not support it) via ethtool to flow director takes no effect if the packet’s DMAC matches a VF’ MAC, as the packet will be distributed by L2 switch to the VF that rx queue belongs to. Ixgbe does not support per-VF flow director that allows you setup filters distributing packet to two rx queue inside a VF.

Cheers,
-Luke



  reply	other threads:[~2014-11-24 13:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-10-24  9:22 [dpdk-dev] DPDK Community Conference Call - Friday 31st October O'driscoll, Tim
2014-10-24 15:05 ` Michael Marchetti
2014-10-24 15:22   ` O'driscoll, Tim
2014-10-31 15:34 ` O'driscoll, Tim
2014-10-31 17:36   ` O'driscoll, Tim
2014-11-01 12:59     ` Neil Horman
2014-11-01 14:05       ` Vincent JARDIN
2014-11-05 13:00     ` [dpdk-dev] bifurcated driver Thomas Monjalon
2014-11-05 15:14       ` Alex Markuze
2014-11-05 15:19         ` Alex Markuze
2014-11-05 22:19           ` Zhou, Danny
2014-11-05 22:48       ` Zhou, Danny
2014-11-06  1:30         ` Vincent JARDIN
2014-11-06  4:45           ` Zhou, Danny
2014-11-06  8:13             ` Alex Markuze
2014-11-06  9:10               ` Nicolas Dichtel
2014-11-24 11:57       ` Luke Gorrie
2014-11-24 13:38         ` Zhou, Danny [this message]
2014-11-20  7:17     ` [dpdk-dev] DPDK Community Conference Call - Friday 31st October Kevin Wilson
2014-11-20 13:13       ` O'driscoll, Tim
2014-11-20 17:02         ` Kevin Wilson
2014-11-20 23:26           ` O'driscoll, Tim
2014-11-21 10:54             ` Kevin Wilson

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=DFDF335405C17848924A094BC35766CF0A9C7545@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com \
    --to=danny.zhou@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=john.r.fastabend@intel.com \
    --cc=luke@snabb.co \
    --cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
    /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).