From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B7ACC282CE for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 18:25:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD31427400 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 18:25:23 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org DD31427400 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39184 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hXre7-0006fD-4T for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 14:25:23 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:58893) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hXrXh-0001sr-En for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 14:18:46 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hXrXg-0001kv-DB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 14:18:45 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51548) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hXrXg-0001jk-59 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 14:18:44 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A80F30C31A3; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 18:18:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vhost2.laine.org (ovpn-117-135.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.117.135]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DAC460487; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 18:18:24 +0000 (UTC) To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" References: <20190517125820.2885-1-jfreimann@redhat.com> <20190520165657.2293c5d7@x1.home> <20190521072157.wpb77wlc5mhfcdes@jenstp.localdomain> <20190521073511-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190521184918.n4nnk6ack3ssp6jv@jenstp.localdomain> <20190528225039-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <1c5f460e-a3b9-56c1-90f7-b3a5c3d0a0d3@redhat.com> <20190603140832-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> From: Laine Stump Message-ID: <1fa683cc-02c6-c674-78ef-db6afa55026a@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 14:18:19 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190603140832-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.40]); Mon, 03 Jun 2019 18:18:43 +0000 (UTC) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/4] add failover feature for assigned network devices X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: pkrempa@redhat.com, berrange@redhat.com, ehabkost@redhat.com, aadam@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alex Williamson , si-wei liu , Jens Freimann , ailan@redhat.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 6/3/19 2:12 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 02:06:47PM -0400, Laine Stump wrote: >> On 5/28/19 10:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 05:14:22PM -0700, si-wei liu wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5/21/2019 11:49 AM, Jens Freimann wrote: >>>>> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 07:37:19AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 09:21:57AM +0200, Jens Freimann wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 04:56:57PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: >> >>>>>> Actually is there a list of devices for which this has been tested >>>>>> besides mlx5? I think someone said some old intel cards >>>>>> don't support this well, we might need to blacklist these ... >>>>> >>>>> So far I've tested mlx5 and XL710 which both worked, but I'm >>>>> working on testing with more devices. But of course help with testing >>>>> is greatly appreciated. >>>> >>>> It won't work on Intel ixgbe and Broadcom bnxt_en, which requires toggling >>>> the state of tap backing the virtio-net in order to release/reprogram MAC >>>> filter. Actually, it's very few NICs that could work with this - even some >>>> works by chance the behavior is undefined. Instead of blacklisting it makes >>>> more sense to whitelist the NIC that supports it - with some new sysfs >>>> attribute claiming the support presumably. >>>> >>>> -Siwei >>> >>> I agree for many cards we won't know how they behave until we try. One >>> can consider this a bug in Linux that cards don't behave in a consistent >>> way. The best thing to do IMHO would be to write a tool that people can >>> run to test the behaviour. >> >> Is the "bad behavior" something due to the hardware of the cards, or their >> drivers? If it's the latter, then at least initially having a whitelist >> would be counterproductive, since it would make it difficult for relative >> outsiders to test and report success/failure of various cards. > > We can add an "ignore whitelist" flag. Would that address the issue? It would be better than requiring a kernel/qemu recompile :-) Where would the whilelist live? In qemu or in the kernel? It would be problematic to have the whitelist in qemu if kernel driver changes could fix a particular card. Beyond that, what about *always* just issuing some sort of warning rather than completely forbidding a card that wasn't whitelisted? (Haven't decided if I like that better or not (and it probably doesn't matter, since I'm not a "real" user, but I thought I would mention it).