Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 09:56:28PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote: >On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 15:02:39 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 03:10:54AM CET, wrote: >> >On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 09:52:04 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 08:09:43PM CET, wrote: >> >> >If the switchport is in the hypervisor then only the hypervisor can >> >> >control switching/forwarding, correct? >> >> >> >> Correct. >> >> >> >> >The primary use case for partitioning within a VM (of a VF) would be >> >> >containers (and DPDK)? >> >> >> >> Makes sense. >> >> >> >> >SR-IOV makes things harder. Splitting a PF is reasonably easy to grasp. >> >> >I'm trying to get a sense of is how would we control an SR-IOV >> >> >environment as a whole. >> >> >> >> You mean orchestration? >> > >> >Right, orchestration. >> > >> >To be clear on where I'm going with this - if we want to allow VFs >> >to partition themselves then they have to control what is effectively >> >a "nested" switch. A per-VF set of rules which would the get >> >> Wait. If you allow to make VF subports (I believe that is what you ment >> by VFs partition themselves), that does not mean they will have a >> separate nested switch. They would still belong under the same one. > >But that existing switch is administered by the hypervisor, how would >the VF owners install forwarding rules in a switch they don't control?
They won't. > >> >"flattened" into the main eswitch rule set. If I was to choose I'd >> >really rather have this "flattening" be done on the (Linux) hypervisor >> >and not in the vendor driver and firmware. >> >> Agreed. Driver should provide one big switch. User should configure it. > >Cool, when you say user - is it the tenant or the provider? Whoever gets access to the instance. > >> >I'd much rather have the VM make a "give me another NIC" orchestration >> >call via some high level REST API than devlink. This makes the >> >configuration strictly high level to low level: >> > >> > VM -> cloud net REST API -> cloud agent -> devlink/Linux -> FW -> HW >> > >> >Without round trips via firmware. >> >> Okay. So the "devlink/Linux -> FW" part is going to happen on baremetal. >> Makes sense. >> >> >This allows for easy policy enforcement, common code to be maintained >> >in user space, in high level languages (no 0.5M LoC drivers and 10M LoC >> >firmware for every driver). It can also be used with software paths >> >like VirtIO.. >> >> Agreed. >> >> >Modelling and debugging a nested switch would be a nightmare. What >> >follows is that we probably shouldn't deal with partitioning of VFs, >> >but rather only partition via the PF devlink instance, and reassign >> >the partitions to VMs. >> >> Agreed. That must be misunderstanding, I never suggested nested >> switches. > >Cool, yes, I was making sure we weren't going in that direction :) Okay. > >> >> I originally planned to implement sriov orchestration api in devlink too. >> >> >> > >> >Interesting, would you mind elaborating? >> >> I have to think about it. But something like this: >> [...] > >I see thanks for the examples, they makes things clear! Okay. I will put together some documentation including this. I have some patches that implement some of the stuff. Your patchset also does some of that (considering you adjust a thing or two). Lets make this right.
