From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] [RFC PATCH net-next v2 1/2] virtio_net: Introduce VIRTIO_NET_F_BACKUP feature bit Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 02:05:48 +0200 Message-ID: <20180123020332-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <1515736720-39368-1-git-send-email-sridhar.samudrala@intel.com> <1515736720-39368-2-git-send-email-sridhar.samudrala@intel.com> <20180117203757-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <058068e5-febd-92c8-e5a9-faf262b82335@intel.com> <20180117213527-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20180122231713-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <7edf772b-627c-6121-3332-479caed524da@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Duyck, Alexander H" , virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, Jakub Kicinski , Netdev , Alexander Duyck , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, achiad shochat , Achiad Shochat , David Miller To: "Samudrala, Sridhar" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7edf772b-627c-6121-3332-479caed524da@intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 03:27:40PM -0800, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote: > > > You could probably > > > even handle the Tx queue selection via a simple eBPF program and map > > > since the input for whatever is used to select Tx should be pretty > > > simple, destination MAC, source NUMA node, etc, and the data-set > > > shouldn't be too large. > > That sounds interesting. A separate device might make this kind of setup > > a bit easier. Sridhar, did you look into creating a separate device for > > the virtual bond device at all? It does not have to be in a separate > > module, that kind of refactoring can come later, but once we commit to > > using the same single device as virtio, we can't change that. > > No. I haven't looked into creating a separate device. If we are going to > create a new > device, i guess it has to be of a new device type with its own driver. Well not necessarily - just a separate netdev ops. Kind of like e.g. vlans share a driver with the main driver. > As we are using virtio_net to control and manage the VF data path, it is not > clear to me > what is the advantage of creating a new device rather than extending > virtio_net to manage > the VF datapath via transparent bond mechanism. > > Thanks > Sridhar So that XDP redirect actions can differentiate between virtio, PT device and the bond. Without it there's no way to redirect to virtio specifically. -- MST