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 950EDC04AB5 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 18:17:19 +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 70A7827134 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 18:17:19 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 70A7827134 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]:39068 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hXrWI-0000L9-I4 for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 14:17:18 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:57343) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hXrRt-00058O-Io for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 14:12:46 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hXrRs-00009r-FZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 14:12:45 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-f193.google.com ([209.85.222.193]:45643) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hXrRs-00008d-An for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 14:12:44 -0400 Received: by mail-qk1-f193.google.com with SMTP id s22so1025806qkj.12 for ; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 11:12:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=0pw6MZAMWtuA3pyD/FdS3ul+2ngVJ2pjV9pwSa8Ik8U=; b=kycW0/f5MJ8Gul59tIgWasv/GV90yeVo8WFqiBeLHM7q0Q183NI66HPTH58IaJ2W6j LrsjNXAsBA/ByHqe8bOiFPp+vHM2n6dyw0ItUSazqiPgsyI7co91n24mid0NjjI0Jrzu Z8FF8Mb2LUVFuUmL2rgeWYvpgrgmA/IXl4nuJGGP0CbmupDiEOV8wIdHw3FQY6ZEeo2y bXzuy7Y9M6O2f2RCtOiJ7tO0qFea59ehhfG83vch56dM74pU/Jozmh0oxZ8T8ZBaD3aM x2wDf4pH71tRFna2qHx9/InJ4S3RqeDmBBjClfrJMXJZHdwiZ7EFkxwufZq2vg1E/vlw NMtg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU82mo3+uIKQM9q+FpXamZSSeR3cK9oyOHS3RJYCFJAsgvzYVu7 jPee0CbJaTxeXp+i20llnNconA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw1XZ7HGg08iTVC1IOhqaxZwC44a55HrPYgnFbWbIquSfu3pHOBCtrcvlEBfmu0ej4mSj3zqQ== X-Received: by 2002:a37:4d56:: with SMTP id a83mr3938108qkb.62.1559585563534; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 11:12:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from redhat.com (pool-100-0-197-103.bstnma.fios.verizon.net. [100.0.197.103]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r186sm6690925qkb.9.2019.06.03.11.12.41 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 03 Jun 2019 11:12:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 14:12:40 -0400 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Laine Stump Message-ID: <20190603140832-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1c5f460e-a3b9-56c1-90f7-b3a5c3d0a0d3@redhat.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.85.222.193 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 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's probably just a pipe dream, but it would be nice if it eventually > could work with old igb cards - I have several of them that I use for SRIOV > testing, and would rather avoid having to buy new hardware.) I think it generally can be worked around in the driver. Most host drivers do get a notification when guest driver loads/unloads and can use that to manipulate the on-device switch. -- MST