From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vincent JARDIN Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] enhancement to i40e PF host driver Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 13:52:38 +0100 Message-ID: <64ddfd77-e71e-298e-687a-a9991f8c64ee@6wind.com> References: <1482476332-21376-1-git-send-email-jing.d.chen@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ferruh.yigit@intel.com, jingjing.wu@intel.com To: "Chen Jing D(Mark)" , dev@dpdk.org Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com (mail-wm0-f51.google.com [74.125.82.51]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC94337B4 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2016 13:52:45 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f51.google.com with SMTP id c85so13671339wmi.1 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2016 04:52:45 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1482476332-21376-1-git-send-email-jing.d.chen@intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Thanks for this update. Still, I would like to get good arguments why DPDK should be a PF because it creates fragmentations. Please, first, let's reply to: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-December/053107.html Having both Linux and DPDK being PF, it means that we double the combinations so we double the issues. The following should be used instead: assuming you want to use DPDK PF for dataplane feature, an alternative is, - configure one VF on the hypervisor from Linux's PF, let's name if VF_forPFtraffic, see http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/howto/flow_bifurcation.html - have no (or few IOs) to the PF's queue - assign the traffic to all VF_forPFtraffic's queues of the hypervisor, - run DPDK into the hypervisor's VF_forPFtraffic Thank you, Vincent