From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Gibson Subject: Re: rtnetlink problems with Cisco enic and VFs Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:24:58 +1000 Message-ID: <20140423092458.d9b5ee99d389e30e87b86376@redhat.com> References: <20140422141425.127dabd3c63482a6a655469e@redhat.com> <6CE81A2095B0024BBC77007BD04E553823E85BC2@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA1"; boundary="Signature=_Wed__23_Apr_2014_09_24_58_+1000_DeM_wnSDj3n4psv3" Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "Sujith Sankar (ssujith)" , Govindarajulu Varadarajan , "Neel Patel (neepatel)" , Nishank Trivedi To: "Christian Benvenuti (benve)" Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59819 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750705AbaDVXZI (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:25:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: <6CE81A2095B0024BBC77007BD04E553823E85BC2@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --Signature=_Wed__23_Apr_2014_09_24_58_+1000_DeM_wnSDj3n4psv3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:14:04 +0000 "Christian Benvenuti (benve)" wrote: > David, >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Gibson [mailto:dgibson@redhat.com] > > Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 9:14 PM > > To: netdev@vger.kernel.org > > Cc: Christian Benvenuti (benve); Sujith Sankar (ssujith); Govindarajulu > > Varadarajan; Neel Patel (neepatel); Nishank Trivedi > > Subject: RFC: rtnetlink problems with Cisco enic and VFs > >=20 > > I believe I've found a problem with netlink handling which can be trigg= ered > > on Cisco enic devices with a large number (30-40) of virtual functions.= I > > believe this is the cause of a real customer problem we've seen. > >=20 > > * When requesting a list of interfaces with RTM_GETLINK, enic devices > > (and currently, _only_ enic devices) report IFLA_VF_PORTS > > information >=20 > Is the fact that Enic is the only driver implementing ndo_get_vf_port [1] > the root cause of the problem and the reason why this happens only with E= nic? Yes, or at least it's one of the factors. >=20 > /Chris >=20 > [1] > This is what makes rtnl_port_size to account for vf_port_size*dev_num_vf(= ...) > and rtnl_port_fill to add IFLA_VF_PORTS. --=20 David Gibson --Signature=_Wed__23_Apr_2014_09_24_58_+1000_DeM_wnSDj3n4psv3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTVvpKAAoJEGw4ysog2bOSMAUP/29eohx3ZNUQmGZ2Kl7f4RGO A3Sf0VAYEDqUMXmz8PYu37WB/XaG36rwvb3mdPyMuke9vhPuWigFAOJTDKAcVVS4 YlD9xQoFv4RHQHKFuyepU7NDYb63L19wO7bPFFHGOzefs3nucj9rLQKbtdYVckgl /Ix1ebl9molpYzWnx+DOjZLhDBYNksvunrG1YYGc3uPMCtjFZ1dvPe3Q6w7HHM9E S6ssA6EPkFF+DAjQcv1o+kLbtw2pgQfWaFTgeYuQwZyDwGaMXwwOgyAOvGAYSNrl X3awpvWkW7oDCuljynN2Fz3n5D27XD0OXm3WCyczdY/Eah/SROtri0r1hOyUoqRG WINe4tvVS1JOfvstSbyT+SV0ALdAyXzo9xIyxZ91oAt25Ja80BBz/wPkaMu1Wq6H nuZFJBODR2aaPUacuA4V3iDPdw6qfgLbFYGMPjssvFt1grcn7i4kZeFRzBf9r/yn +zcKAfxTavauYadyLLUcxd/d8295cgGIRQ4nD6wy0eDsZCuETPH94YpSPsIaSU6E sU6jyFIJ932lMKXCYYQm42fqolaX+5L6Mwh/g7th6kBldElYGWPXegvOz9BSaCKA EkTiP1/gVKS5Zd53ErZYJ5wmC+oKEe8DZ+7Ch6ji0ah8dPKMTZmxQHeGuJn361QM vtAJaotGC4R2OvDfD8GL =VrpK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Wed__23_Apr_2014_09_24_58_+1000_DeM_wnSDj3n4psv3--