Hi Greg, Tonghao, In case I use option No.2, how to make encapsulated traffic inside a VLAN? Should I do following steps?
* Create representor ports of VFs * Make bonding of created VFs (the VF are from member bonded PFs) * Create VLAN of bonded VFs * Give IP for created VLAN * Use created IP for ovn-encap-ip (this case is for OVN with OVS-DPDK) Best regards, On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:30 AM Tonghao Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 12:07 PM Lazuardi Nasution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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? > maybe different solution, about isolated mode, please see: > https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.html#flow-isolated-mode > > > 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 > > > > -- > Best regards, Tonghao >
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
