From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Flavio Leitner Subject: Re: kernel binding of devices + hotplug Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 11:11:01 -0300 Message-ID: <20180418141101.GB2549@plex.lan> References: <2407757.yEAnF6RcS7@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Thomas Monjalon , dev@dpdk.org, bruce.richardson@intel.com, anatoly.burakov@intel.com, pmatilai@redhat.com, david.marchand@6wind.com, jia.guo@intel.com, matan@mellanox.com, konstantin.ananyev@intel.com To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from mail-qk0-f170.google.com (mail-qk0-f170.google.com [209.85.220.170]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86DD6A48D for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:11:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-qk0-f170.google.com with SMTP id c188so1881664qkg.2 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 07:11:07 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 01:48:36AM +0000, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > My vote is to work with udev and not try to replace it. > > Driverctl works well. Just not for bifurcated driver I second that. We also have other system configs to care about like kernel parameters and hugepage configuration which I think follow the same idea that they are system wide configs and should not be managed by DPDK itself. fbl > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 9:31 AM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > It's time to think (again) how we bind devices with kernel modules. > > We need to decide how we want to manage hotplugged devices with DPDK. > > > > A bit of history first. > > There was some code in DPDK for bind/unbind, but it has been removed > > in DPDK 1.7 - http://dpdk.org/commit/5d8751b83 > > Copy of the commit message (in 2014): > > " > > The bind/unbind operations should not be handled by the eal. > > These operations should be either done outside of dpdk or > > inside the PMDs themselves as these are their problems. > > " > > > > The question raised at this time (4 years ago) is still under discussion. > > Should we manage binding inside or outside DPDK? > > Should it be controlled in the application or in the OS base? > > > > As you know, we use dpdk-devbind.py. > > This tool lacks two major features: > > - persistent configuration > > - hotplug > > > > If we consider that the DPDK applications should be able to apply its own > > policy to choose the devices to bind, then we need to implement binding > > in the PMD (with EAL helpers). > > > > On the other hand, if we consider that it is the system responsibility, > > then we could choose systemd/udev and driverctl. > > > > The debate is launched! > > > > Please find more details in the references below. > > > > Announce of driverctl: > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-December/029500.html > > Repository of driverctl: > > https://gitlab.com/driverctl/driverctl > > > > Discussion about binding script and driverctl: > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-April/095687.html > > > > Patch to implement binding in DPDK (for hotplug): > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-April/095714.html > > > > Discussion in the same hotplug series: > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-April/097058.html > > > > > > > > -- Flavio