On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 08:38:40 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 05:55:55PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote: > >On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 17:22:43 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >> Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 05:17:31PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote: > >> >On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 07:07:01 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >> >> 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. > >> > > >> >Argh. So how is forwarding configured if there are no rules? Are you > >> >going to assume its switching on MACs? We're supposed to offload > >> >software constructs. If its a software port it needs to be explicitly > >> >switched. If it's not explicitly switched - we already have macvlan > >> >offload. > >> > >> Wait a second. You configure the switch. And for that, you have the > >> switchports (representors). What we are talking about are VF (VF > >> subport) host legs. Am I missing something? > > > >Hm :) So when VM gets a new port, how is it connected? Are we > >assuming all ports of a VM are plugged into one big L2 switch? > >The use case for those sub ports is a little murky, sorry about > >the endless confusion :) > > Np. When user John (on baremetal, or whenever the devlink instance > with switch port is) creates VF of VF subport by: > $ devlink dev port add pci/0000:05:00.0 flavour pci_vf pf 0 > or by: > $ devlink dev port add pci/0000:05:00.0 flavour pci_vf pf 0 vf 0 > > Then instances of flavour pci_vf are going to appear in the same devlink > instance. Those are the switch ports: > pci/0000:05:00.0/10002: type eth netdev enp5s0npf0pf0s0 > flavour pci_vf pf 0 vf 0 > switch_id 00154d130d2f peer pci/0000:05:10.1/0 > pci/0000:05:00.0/10003: type eth netdev enp5s0npf0pf0s0 > flavour pci_vf pf 0 vf 0 subport 1 > switch_id 00154d130d2f peer pci/0000:05:10.1/1 > > With that, peers are going to appear too, and those are the actual VF/VF > subport: > pci/0000:05:10.1/0: type eth netdev ??? flavour pci_vf_host > peer pci/0000:05:00.0/10002 > pci/0000:05:10.1/1: type eth netdev ??? flavour pci_vf_host > peer pci/0000:05:00.0/10003 > > Later you can push this VF along with all subports to VM. So in VM, you > are going to see the VF like this: > $ devlink dev > pci/0000:00:08.0 > $ devlink port > pci/0000:00:08.0/0: type eth netdev ??? flavour pci_vf_host > pci/0000:00:08.0/1: type eth netdev ??? flavour pci_vf_host > > And back to your question of how are they connected in eswitch. > That is totally up to the original user John who did the creation. > He is in charge of the eswitch on baremetal, he would configure > the forwarding however he likes.
Ack, so I think you're saying VM has to communicate to the cloud environment to have this provisioned using some service API, not a kernel API. That's what I wanted to confirm. I don't see any benefit to having the "host ports" under devlink, as such I think it's a matter of preference. I'll try to describe the two options to Netronome's FAEs and see which one they find more intuitive. Makes sense?
