From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Franck Baudin Subject: Re: virtio-net: bind systematically on all non blacklisted virtio-net devices Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 14:30:12 +0200 Message-ID: <55F177D4.5010701@qosmos.com> References: <55EE9AFE.1070202@qosmos.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Ouyang, Changchun" , "dev@dpdk.org" Return-path: Received: from mc28.lon.server.colt.net (mc28.lon.server.colt.net [212.74.77.108]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADB9E5A64 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 14:30:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mc28.lon.server.colt.net (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C55FF0270 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:30:15 +0100 (BST) Received: from mx3.qosmos.com (unknown [195.68.92.43]) by mc28.lon.server.colt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15CFEF026D for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:30:14 +0100 (BST) In-Reply-To: List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 09/09/15 04:11, Ouyang, Changchun wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Franck Baudin >> Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 4:23 PM >> To: dev@dpdk.org >> Subject: [dpdk-dev] virtio-net: bind systematically on all non blacklisted >> virtio-net devices >> >> Hi, >> >> virtio-net driver bind on all virtio-net devices, even if the devices are used by >> the kernel (leading to kernel soft-lookup/panic). One way around is to >> blacklist the ports in use by Linux. This is the case since v2.0.0, in fact since >> commit da978dfdc43b59e290a46d7ece5fd19ce79a1162 >> and the removal of the RTE_PCI_DRV_NEED_MAPPING driver flag. > It allows virtio-pmd not necessarily depend on igb_uio, this is which characteristic other pmd drivers don't have. Thanks for your answer, So this is the expected behaviour: all virtio interfaces are bound to the pmd driver. Don't you think that dpdk_nic_bind.py should reflect the driver behaviour, and that the virtio documentation (still referencing igb_uio) be amended? Regards, Franck > >> Questions: >> 1/ Is it the expected behaviour? >> 2/ Why is it different from vmxnet3 pmd? In other words, should't we re- >> add the RTE_PCI_DRV_NEED_MAPPING to virtio pmd or remove it from >> pmxnet3 pmd? >> 3/ If this is the expected behaviour, shouldn't we update >> dpdk_nic_bind.py (binding status irrelevant for virtio) tool and the >> documentation (mentioning igb_uio while misleading and useless)? >> >> Thanks! >> >> Best Regards, >> Franck >> >> >>