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 E0F0EA0524 for ; Sat, 1 Feb 2020 18:42:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEF741C035; Sat, 1 Feb 2020 18:42:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-io1-f50.google.com (mail-io1-f50.google.com [209.85.166.50]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F390CF72 for ; Sat, 1 Feb 2020 18:42:51 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-io1-f50.google.com with SMTP id h8so12025639iob.2 for ; Sat, 01 Feb 2020 09:42:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=sWMaDZ/r6PgAOsVhJQLbRNjHa0WV7My1UJXAPWNgbH0=; b=TxC3O4PLMgoxjcDdvW9nLYPiFHgub97n+cbSQkZ5pzXEbpLRU/0AYhKkfLnxbF0D+U 1wf1vkqW4GgzN518rUt3+raM9f+Ir5uwnV8xVIGQLY2TbHLxew45v+00gjPpBw4B0B3S 5/psh8r726rvXR1TyTSphvHd/+wHxjyirumvxQq+taNOGKnIS7WjgH7yT5pbbAUo9aY2 EnTcfSrBFXLYBChmDg2lo97NV5GbZWUXuW0OWfRlCc0Y3mSDTmO7tXK+uUhoE+NBX1+s S8PuzahRG2y37UtI84ywtWsnyBr3+E7pJTE5Xp9WSxdShlhAPlc1+WUaNg37fQFIbihe Cfdw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=sWMaDZ/r6PgAOsVhJQLbRNjHa0WV7My1UJXAPWNgbH0=; b=OStbFQjPPcQlmI8o53H1CYuURXeCjfM36Ctp+ZvDNkM7vaQyz9gtELyBpoeZTWqWjm F3ZQxnKf6038UHZU2vBH59KIyzsLPPUHwMdzvm1tN2DtELn35ExTYXWLzgx70qEUEfpS hPofPf3CM8QDrjyg+W8fG1qpF9gE97Mn92abIcvqj2VrI6HICEV7SLChjcHiEtLmAdtc OpnFwn/ku0S7GR7HykVLRseqvzlBNFB9KZtUaoyeVSdVmgW0WAPyjFSqZ7YkKd5kiNkQ xQ8vJPJ4stIeIkLGHLCbCZKcZFaFziRdYyK1HG1FtzTwqYwn52y1t5rxXp9MVcN9E3m8 9myw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUe9Zm06y92TJ9aU69j8UG4zrWd13CVFprtVsBkSlhm4F4vlNKq hnn/pCQRQUagmNdHp+JcIPMh6QXSmzpvIphWdJQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy2pmDvmA+4FXSSfrPRAGljZWVWHg/cI3noKFMJBssjNJxhnibEwXMBTfiptJYTbH7L1Dx3YhT+usIqcxjHIQg= X-Received: by 2002:a02:856a:: with SMTP id g97mr12857213jai.97.1580578971207; Sat, 01 Feb 2020 09:42:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: "Hirok J. Bora" Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2020 23:12:26 +0530 Message-ID: To: Suchetha p Cc: users 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 application using SR-IOV and PCI Passthrough to be compatible with all Hardware NICs 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" Avoid SR-IOV and implement OVS on the host. Implement acceleration at host level first then guest level, if needed. SR-IOV does not provide L2 level switching flexibility. Do use overlay between ovs and the guest, implement vxlan. This will give you 100% control on the HW. All the best =F0=9F=91=8D On Sat, Feb 1, 2020, 10:50 PM Suchetha p wrote: > Hi, > > We are trying to bring up KVM based VMs on HP Gen10 Servers running on RH= EL > 7.6 and having Intel X710 NIC's. > > The VMs are also running on RHEL 7.6 and the DPDK version used in the gue= st > application is 18.08. > > Intel DPDK VF drivers (igb_uio) compiled and loaded currently in our VM a= re > not compatible with the Host PF drivers(vfio-pci) for Intel X710 Ethernet > NICs. > > The igb_uio driver may be only compatible with Intel NICs like 82599 as i= t > worked in our lab for HP Gen9 servers running RHEL 7.6 having Intel 82599 > NICs. > > Issues observed with DPDK VF driver igb_uio for Intel X710 NICs: > > The outgoing packets from DPDK application are leaving VM via VF towards > Host=E2=80=99s Physical ports and reaching remote Host=E2=80=99s Physical= ports. > > But the incoming packets from Host=E2=80=99s Physical port are not reachi= ng VM via > VF. > > Could you please confirm whether igb_uio driver is compatible with only > Intel NICs like 82599 ? > > So we had to change PCI device binding to another driver vfio-pci availab= le > in RHEL7. > > 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. > > why does X710 NIC VF driver remove the VLAN without RX offload VLAN stri= p > flags set? > > Could you please check and confirm if the unexpected VLAN removal behavio= ur > of X710 NIC VF driver vfio-pci is a known bug? > > We want to generalize DPDK implementation for all HW NICs.Could you pleas= e > clarify if this is achievable with igb_uio or vfio-pci driver ? > > We would appreciate if you could provide your feedback and suggestions > towards generic solution. > > Thanks, > > Suchetha >