----- Original Message ----- > From: "Irena Berezovsky" <irenab....@gmail.com> > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Steve Gordon <sgor...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Przemyslaw Czesnowicz" <przemyslaw.czesnow...@intel.com> > > > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" < > > email@example.com> > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > 1) If the device is a "normal" PCI device, but is a network card, am I > > > > still able to > > > > take advantage of the advanced syntax added circa Juno to define the > > > > relationship between that card and a given physical network so that the > > > > scheduler can place accordingly (and does this still use the ML2 mech > > > > drvier for > > > > SR-IOV even though it's a "normal" device. > > > > > > Actually libvirt won't allow using "normal" PCI devices for network > > > interfaces into VM. > > > Following error is thrown by libvirt 184.108.40.206: > > > libvirtError: unsupported configuration: Interface type hostdev is > > currently > > > supported on SR-IOV Virtual Functions only > > > > > > I don't know why libvirt prohibits that. But we should prohibit that on > > > Openstack side as well. > > > > This is true for hostdev"> style configuration, "normal" PCI devices are > > still valid in Libvirt for passthrough using <hostdev> though. The former > > having been specifically created for handling passthrough of VFs, the > > latter being the more generic passthrough functionality and what was used > > with the original PCI passthrough functionality introduced circa Havana. > > > > I guess what I'm really asking in this particular question is what is the > > intersection of these two implementations - if any, as on face value it > > seems that to passthrough a physical PCI device I must use the older syntax > > and thus can't have the scheduler be aware of its external network > > connectivity. > > > Support for "normal" PCI device passthrough for networking in SR-IOV like > way will require new VIF Driver support for hostdev style device guest XML > being created and some call invocation to set MAC address and VLAN tag. > > > > > > > 2) There is no functional reason from a Libvirt/Qemu perspective that I > > > > couldn't > > > > pass through a PF to a guest, and some users have expressed surprise > > to me > > > > when they have run into this check in the Nova driver. I assume in the > > > > initial > > > > implementation this was prevented to avoid a whole heap of fun > > additional > > > > logic > > > > that is required if this is allowed (e.g. check that no VFs from the PF > > > > being > > > > requested are already in use, remove all the associated VFs from the > > pool > > > > when > > > > assigning the PF, who gets allowed to use PFs versus VFs etc.). Am I > > > > correct here > > > > or is there another reason that this would be undesirable to allow in > > > > future - > > > > assuming such checks can also be designed - that I am missing? > > > > > > > I think that is correct. But even if the additional logic was > > implemented it > > > wouldn't work because of how libvirt behaves currently. > > > > Again though, in the code we have a distinction between a physical device > > (as I was asking about in Q1) and a physical function (as I am asking about > > in Q2) and similarly whether libvirt allows or not depends on how you > > configure in the guest XML. Though I wouldn't be surprised on the PF case > > if it is in fact not allowed in Libvirt (even with <hostdev>) it is again > > important to consider this distinctly separate from passing through the > > physical device case which we DO allow currently in the code I'm asking > > about. > > > I think what you suggest is not difficult to support, but current (since > Juno) PCI device passthrough for networking is all about SR-IOV PCI device > passthrough. As I mentioned, to support "normal" PCI device will require > libvirt VIF Driver adjustment. I think its possible to make this work with > existing neutron ML2 SRIOV Mechanism Driver.
Understood, was just trying to understand if there was an explicit reason *not* to do this. How should we track this, keep adding to https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kilo_sriov_pci_passthrough ? Thanks, Steve __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev