Hmm. I received 5 copies of this patch.
Are they different or you just have some strange issues with sending mails?
Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
On 15.01.2019 12:47, Ophir Munk wrote:
> Dpdk port representors were introduced in dpdk versions 18.xx.
> Prior to port representors there was a one-to-one relationship
> between an rte device (e.g. PCI bus) and an eth device (referenced as
> dpdk port id in OVS). With port representors the relationship becomes
> one-to-many rte device to eth devices.
> For example in [3] there are two devices (representors) using the same
> PCI physical address 0000:08:00.0: "0000:08:00.0,representor=[3]" and
> "0000:08:00.0,representor=[5]".
> This commit handles the new one-to-many relationship. For example,
> when one of the device port representors in [3] is closed - the PCI bus
> cannot be detached until the other device port representor is closed as
> well. OVS remains backward compatible by supporting dpdk legacy PCI
> ports which do not include port representors.
> Dpdk port representors related commits are listed in [1]. Dpdk port
> representors documentation appears in [2]. A sample configuration
> which uses two representors ports (the output of "ovs-vsctl show"
> command) is shown in [3].
>
> [1]
> e0cb96204b71 ("net/i40e: add support for representor ports")
> cf80ba6e2038 ("net/ixgbe: add support for representor ports")
> 26c08b979d26 ("net/mlx5: add port representor awareness")
>
> [2]
> doc/guides/prog_guide/switch_representation.rst
>
> [3]
> Bridge "ovs_br0"
> Port "ovs_br0"
> Interface "ovs_br0"
> type: internal
> Port "port-rep3"
> Interface "port-rep3"
> type: dpdk
> options: {dpdk-devargs="0000:08:00.0,representor=[3]"}
> Port "port-rep5"
> Interface "port-rep5"
> type: dpdk
> options: {dpdk-devargs="0000:08:00.0,representor=[5]"}
> ovs_version: "2.10.90"
>
> Signed-off-by: Ophir Munk <[email protected]>
> ---
> v1 (hwol branch):
> 1. rebase on top of Kevin's patch
> dpdk: Update to use DPDK 18.11.[ovs-dev,v7,dpdk-latest,1/1] dpdk: Update to
> use DPDK 18.11.
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1005535/
> 2. skipping count of sibling ports in case the sibling port state is
> RTE_ETH_DEV_UNUSED
>
> v2 (switching to master branch):
> 1. Update based on review comments:
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1011457/#2051417
> 2. Send patch on master branch
>
> v3:
> Add a FIXME comment regarding the direct access to DPDK rte_eth_devices array
>
> v4:
> 1. Add FIXME comment to every direct access to DPDK rte_eth_devices array
> 2. Do not probe unconditionally during add-port. Instead see if a device has
> already
> been probed, and if so skip the rte_dev_probe(devargs)
>
> v5:
> 1. Updates following v4 reviews
> 2. Handle cases where flag RTE_ETH_DEV_CLOSE_REMOVE is not supported
> (for PMDs not supporting representors)
>
> lib/netdev-dpdk.c | 174
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 137 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
