On 4/8/2020 8:32 AM, Lazuardi Nasution wrote:
Hi Greg,
Thank you for your suggestion. But anyway, why don't you suggest No. 1?
In term of using suggested No. 2 with MLX5 PMD, is representor port still
needed? I assume that there is no need to communicate between PF and VF.
Let's say, PF is used for Ceph storage and other kernel based (non-DPDK)
services, VF is used for OVS-DPDK.
Hi Lazuardi,
the configuration matrix is dependent on your usage model. Option No. 1
will work fine I'm sure and if it fits your needs then go with it.
- Greg
Best regards,
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 22:24 Gregory Rose <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/8/2020 5:50 AM, Lazuardi Nasution wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking for best practice or experience on running OVS-DPDK and other
kernel based applications with the same interface especially with MLX5
PMD.
As long as I know, one of both must use VF and the other use PF
since kernel and DPDK cannot bind to same interface. Which one of
following
is possible and better?
1. OVS-DPDK bind to PF and kernel bind to VF
2. OVS-DPDK bind to VF and kernel bind to PF
If it is better (or the only possible) to use No. 2, what version of OVS
and DPDK support VF binding? Should I bind to kernel created VF directly
or
it's representor?
If you use option 2 then the Linux kernel has PCI-e primitives that
support the allocation of the VF resources, including number of VFs,
their permissions and settings of any offload capabilities that the VFs
might have.
- Greg
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
