From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Gospodarek Subject: Re: SRIOV switchdev mode BoF minutes Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 12:53:24 -0400 Message-ID: <20180417165324.GK33938@C02RW35GFVH8.dhcp.broadcom.net> References: <20180416123936.GH33938@C02RW35GFVH8.dhcp.broadcom.net> <20180417133028.GI33938@C02RW35GFVH8.dhcp.broadcom.net> <20180417144700.GJ33938@C02RW35GFVH8.dhcp.broadcom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andy Gospodarek , Or Gerlitz , David Miller , Anjali Singhai Jain , Michael Chan , Simon Horman , Jakub Kicinski , John Fastabend , Saeed Mahameed , Jiri Pirko , Rony Efraim , Linux Netdev List To: "Samudrala, Sridhar" Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f175.google.com ([209.85.128.175]:33307 "EHLO mail-wr0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754093AbeDQQxb (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2018 12:53:31 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-f175.google.com with SMTP id z73so37416915wrb.0 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 09:53:31 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 09:46:38AM -0700, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote: > On 4/17/2018 7:47 AM, Andy Gospodarek wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 04:58:05PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:30 PM, Andy Gospodarek > > > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 07:08:39PM -0700, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote: > > > > > On 4/16/2018 5:39 AM, Andy Gospodarek wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 09:01:16AM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 2:03 AM, Samudrala, Sridhar > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I meant between PFs on 2 compute nodes. > > > > > > > If the PF serves as uplink rep, it functions as a switch port -- applications > > > > > > > don't run on switch ports. One way to get apps to run on the host in switchdev > > > > > > > mode is probe one of the VFs there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So once a pci device is configured in 'switchdev' mode, only port representor netdevs are > > > > > seen on the host, no more PF netdev. > > > > That is not the functionality I would propose. The PF netdev will still be there. > > > Andy, > > > > > > Basically LGTM, so even in smartnic configs, the PF @ the host is > > > still privileged to > > > create/destroy VFs or provision MACs for them even if it is not the > > > e-switch manager > > > anymore? > > Yes, in a SmartNIC world one config we aim to have is that a host can create > > and destroy VFs as needed. One of the challenges is how the VF reps are > > managed by applications in the SmartNIC when the host could make them > > disappear. > > OK. So are we saying that in 'switchdev' mode with 2 VFs and 1 uplink, the host will > see PF netdev, 2 vf-rep netdev's corresponding to 2 VFs and 1 uplink-rep netdev. > > Is PF netdev used only for the control/configure of the VFs? If it used as a datapath, > i think we need a pf-rep netdev too. > Yes, that is correct. PF reps could be used for datapath configuration to redirect traffic to a PF.