Hi Greg,

Any concern I should know if I choose to use option No. 1? Something like
what Tonghao tell on previous e-mail on this thread?

Best regards,

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020, 02:24 Gregory Rose <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> 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

Reply via email to