From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D8A8A0542 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2020 07:00:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5546D1BFB2; Sat, 8 Feb 2020 07:00:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-pg1-f170.google.com (mail-pg1-f170.google.com [209.85.215.170]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C2741BFB1 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2020 07:00:00 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-pg1-f170.google.com with SMTP id j15so920497pgm.6 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 22:00:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=csie-io.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=mMqnJW2soA46cLUBxuQFelbv5RN6ROHXp6/Q1d7Z2uY=; b=CtyUZa897tXKayW6KA1cuEoGKd2TW7tca6Pj7FJtUNbxNDC/fwx+pJRdz1p1IizxpL Jg16I+Kx6Frzj+WI88x7XR0T6BRSTju/9V9CUsJSuHxcn5gDZzyygugHxlXOkCRvCWEg Uogp2QMRGvlbTxXpnaZ8vjTBzsL/P5w/dG79xtNHnr2XC9a63bpR0d69K/VNuL8WzDn5 bFA8Q0GwkyzJciJwo3m3F4AqaBuMlZrHiUkdjS4kqflmh6nNRzJRrJZprq0yVV3KzKcQ iG0Ybd5m3bMRg3ZF1vpHRJ3sr9Mnqomc8fRP1bS/TpBv452Sy5TuPRts7KWLz+zNnaOV /TJg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=mMqnJW2soA46cLUBxuQFelbv5RN6ROHXp6/Q1d7Z2uY=; b=dy2HLWyVYEm+dAA9RIAcoEO4sJVWG1JAWgc5IBwti/WUl44YeSi53brS/dw7bqqljP XTMi5QMilJD4zED58kL+l2Ch4VzdFUH+3j/CL7vgGBbWosHxrRUkXg1uFhufzU0WBwGU 1+15RKRpKbfDO6QC64330eBbyTbFyaMKF5KNRCkRFR3Usmh/NcV0sZ2Yd87HBVAmnMGV NzZO4asybFUwg+YA/4iU50Es1MgFSvMBqFAecpj/YMiP4wWB/IW5ijvYmQF/jdkblsV8 TIKXkolnGiIXzyQNY4kv8Qg2W4SaMXPIJf3Afhfiw+VbmNd3xoiv00yzZcOIfi5+TRYW Z5GA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWQk6oLLOLmxTbjkyse4H1YewY01awyYF97NLRHS6GZzQfkugmf m6oTZtnPlXgp/to63tP4GocUdQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx9PE7mEaGWNXN5/fquRlSDqeQgOK3M/Fu+BG/RiBN1kAZXKjfFYEb5OCyjky0r8X04NdFsaQ== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:96ea:: with SMTP id i10mr2631861pfq.58.1581141599643; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 21:59:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.11.10] (118-167-109-1.dynamic-ip.hinet.net. [118.167.109.1]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 11sm4959318pfz.25.2020.02.07.21.59.57 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 07 Feb 2020 21:59:59 -0800 (PST) From: Huai-En Tseng Message-Id: <2386BE6A-DFB7-45F4-B632-9AC162886FE5@csie.io> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\)) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 13:59:55 +0800 In-Reply-To: Cc: users@dpdk.org To: suchetha2005@gmail.com References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Generic Virtualization approach of DPDK based X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: users-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "users" All my X710 X540 X520 VF work well with igb_uio under DPDK 18.11/19.11. But I never test vfio-pci due to its limitation. 1.vfio-pci module doesn=E2=80=99t support the creation of virtual = functions. 2.Any Virtual Function device can be used with VFIO on its own, but = physical devices will require either all ports bound to VFIO, or some of = them bound to VFIO while others not being bound to anything at all. Could you provide your VF configuration? Does your DPDK application processes packets header field correct? BR, > Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2020 22:50:25 +0530 > From: Suchetha p > To: users@dpdk.org > Subject: [dpdk-users] Generic Virtualization approach of DPDK based > application using SR-IOV and PCI Passthrough to be compatible = with all > Hardware NICs > Message-ID: > = > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"UTF-8" >=20 > Hi, >=20 > We are trying to bring up KVM based VMs on HP Gen10 Servers running on = RHEL > 7.6 and having Intel X710 NIC's. >=20 > The VMs are also running on RHEL 7.6 and the DPDK version used in the = guest > application is 18.08. >=20 > Intel DPDK VF drivers (igb_uio) compiled and loaded currently in our = VM are > not compatible with the Host PF drivers(vfio-pci) for Intel X710 = Ethernet > NICs. >=20 > The igb_uio driver may be only compatible with Intel NICs like 82599 = as it > worked in our lab for HP Gen9 servers running RHEL 7.6 having Intel = 82599 > NICs. >=20 > Issues observed with DPDK VF driver igb_uio for Intel X710 NICs: >=20 > The outgoing packets from DPDK application are leaving VM via VF = towards > Host?s Physical ports and reaching remote Host?s Physical ports. >=20 > But the incoming packets from Host?s Physical port are not reaching VM = via > VF. >=20 > Could you please confirm whether igb_uio driver is compatible with = only > Intel NICs like 82599 ? >=20 > So we had to change PCI device binding to another driver vfio-pci = available > in RHEL7. >=20 > But based on the debugging of our DPDK based application with VF = driver > vfio-pci on X710 NICs we observed that the incoming packets are VLAN > stripped by HW when the OFFLOAD flags are not set for the same. >=20 > why does X710 NIC VF driver remove the VLAN without RX offload VLAN = strip > flags set? >=20 > Could you please check and confirm if the unexpected VLAN removal = behaviour > of X710 NIC VF driver vfio-pci is a known bug? >=20 > We want to generalize DPDK implementation for all HW NICs.Could you = please > clarify if this is achievable with igb_uio or vfio-pci driver ? >=20 > We would appreciate if you could provide your feedback and = suggestions > towards generic solution. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Suchetha >=20