On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 03:42:28PM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > Simon Horman wrote: > >On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 03:00:02PM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > >>Simon Horman wrote: > >>>The 82576 has support for bandwidth allocation to VFs. > >>> > >>>Contrary to the documentation in the 82576 datasheet v2.41 this > >>>appears to work as follows: > >>> > >>>* The ratio supplied is always proportional to 1Gbit/s, > >>> regardless of if the link speed. > >>>* The ratio supplied is an upper-bound on bandwidth available > >>> to the VF, not a minimun guarantee > >>> > >>>This patch exposes bandwidth control to userspace through a simple > >>>per-device (PF) sysfs file, bandwidth_allocation. > >>> > >>>* The file contains a whitespace delimited list of values, one per VF. > >>>* The first value corresponds to the first VF and so on. > >>>* Valid values are integers from 0 to 1000 > >>>* A value of 0 indicates that bandwidth_allocation is disabled. > >>>* Other values indicate the allocated bandwidth, in 1/1000ths of a > >>>gigabit/s > >>> > >>>e.g. The following for a PF with 4 VFs allocates ~20Mbits/ to VF 1, > >>> ~100Mbit/s to VF 2, and leave the other 2 VFs with no allocation. > >>> > >>> echo "20 100 0 0" > /sys/class/net/eth3/device/bandwidth_allocation > >>> > >>>This interface is intended to allow testing of the hardware feature. > >>>There are ongoing discussions about how to expose this feature > >>>to user-space in a more generic way. > >>> > >>>Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <[email protected]> > >>> > >>Of the patches it looks like the only one that really has any issues > >>is this one and it is mostly due to the sysfs implementation. The > >>others I would say can be applied and pushed up into the > >>net-next-2.6 tree. > > > >Thanks, I suspected as much. > > > >>We're currently working on an iproute2 based solution for > >>configuring VFs and can incorporate this functionality into it at > >>some point in the future. > > > >Do you have any pointers to discussions relating to that interface. > >Do you think it would be worth putting in the sysfs interface in the > >mean-time, or would you rather wait? > > I'm not the one working on the interface so I don't know much about > it other than the fact it is being worked on. Hopefully we should > see something in regards to that soon though.
Great, I look forward to hearing something soon. > If anything it might be of some use to split this up into 2 patches. > One that contains the sysfs bits, and another for enabling the > bandwidth control registers. We won't be able to get the sysfs > interface accepted upstream so there isn't much point in us keeping > it around for any other purpose than testing to verify the registers > work as you have described. Understood with regards to the sysfs interface being umergable. Do you think the non-sysfs portion would be acceptable even though there would be no in-tree callers? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ E1000-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel
