On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:05 PM, Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicin...@netronome.com> wrote: > Hi!
Hi Jakub and sorry for the late reply, this crazigly hot summer refuses to die, Note I replied couple of minutes ago but it didn't get to the list, so lets take it from this one: > I wonder if we can use phys_port_id in switchdev to group together > interfaces of a single PCI PF? Here is the problem: > > With a mix of PF and VF interfaces it gets increasingly difficult to > figure out which one corresponds to which PF. We can identify which > *representor* is which, by means of phys_port_name and devlink > flavours. But if the actual VF/PF interfaces are also present on the > same host, it gets confusing when one tries to identify the PF they > came from. Generally one has to resort of matching between PCI DBDF of > the PF and VFs or read relevant info out of ethtool -i. > > In multi host scenario this is particularly painful, as there seems to > be no immediately obvious way to match PCI interface ID of a card (0, > 1, 2, 3, 4...) to the DBDF we have connected. > > Another angle to this is legacy SR-IOV NDOs. User space picks a netdev > from /sys/bus/pci/$VF_DBDF/physfn/net/ to run the NDOs on in somehow > random manner, which means we have to provide those for all devices with > link to the PF (all reprs). And we have to link them (a) because it's > right (tm) and (b) to get correct naming. wait, as you commented in later, not only the mellanox vf reprs but rather also the nfp vf reprs are not linked to the PF, because ip link output grows quadratically. > The only reliable way to make > user space (libvirt) choose the repr it should run the NDOs on (which is > IMHO the corresponding PF repr) is to set phys_port_id on actual VFs, > VF reprs, PFs and PF reprs to a value corresponding to the *PCI PF*, > not the external/Ethernet port when in switchdev mode. User space > should understand phys_port_id in this context, given it was originally > introduced for matching VFs to ports. Using phy_port_id to match/group VFs to PFs makes sense to me. So what would be the libvirt use case you envision that needs the VF and PF reprs to support that as well? or maybe you were not referring to libvirt but to some other provisioning element? I need to refresh my memory on that area.
