On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 02:47:57 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:16:23PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 02:05:48 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > As we are using virtio_net to control and manage the VF data path, it > > > > is not > > > > clear to me > > > > what is the advantage of creating a new device rather than extending > > > > virtio_net to manage > > > > the VF datapath via transparent bond mechanism. > > > > > > So that XDP redirect actions can differentiate between virtio, PT > > > device and the bond. Without it there's no way to redirect > > > to virtio specifically. > > > > Let's make a list :P > > > > separate netdev: > > 1. virtio device being a bond master is confusing/unexpected. > > 2. virtio device being both a master and a slave is confusing. > > vlans are like this too, aren't they?
Perhaps a bad wording. Both master and member would be better. > > 3. configuration of a master may have different semantics than > > configuration of a slave. > > 4. two para-virt devices may create a loop (or rather will be bound > > to each other indeterministically, depending on which spawns first). > > For 2 virtio devices, we can disable the bond to make it deterministic. Do you mean the hypervisor can or is there a knob in virtio_net to mask off features? Would that require re-probe of the virtio device? > > 5. there is no user configuration AFAIR in existing patch, VM admin > > won't be able to prevent the bond. Separate netdev we can make > > removable even if it's spawned automatically. > > That's more or less a feature. If you want configurability, just use > any of the existing generic solutions (team,bond,bridge,...). The use case in mind is that VM admin wants to troubleshoot a problem and temporarily disable the auto-bond without touching the hypervisor (and either member preferably). > > 6. XDP redirect use-case (or any explicit use of the virtio slave) > > (from MST) > > > > independent driver: > > 7. code reuse. > > With netvsc? That precludes a separate device though because of > compatibility. Hopefully with one of the established bonding drivers (fingers crossed). We may see proliferation of special bonds (see Achiad's presentation from last netdev about NIC-NUMA-node-bonds). > > separate device: > > I'm not sure I understand how "separate device" is different from > "separate netdev". Do you advocate for a special device who's job is > just to tell the guest "bind these two devices together"? > > Yea, sure, that works. However for sure it's more work to > implement and manage at all levels. Further > > - it doesn't answer the question > - a feature bit in a virtio device is cheap enough that > I wouldn't worry too much about this feature > going unused later. Right, I think we are referring to different things as device. I mean a bus device/struct device, but no strong preference on that one. I'll be happy as long as there is a separate netdev, really :) > > 8. bond any netdev with any netdev. > > 9. reuse well-known device driver model. > > a. natural anchor for hypervisor configuration (switchdev etc.) > > saparate netdev has the same property > > > b. next-gen silicon may be able to disguise as virtio device, and the > > loop check in virtio driver will prevent the legitimate bond it such > > case. AFAIU that's one of the goals of next-gen virtio spec as well. > > In fact we have a virtio feature bit for the fallback. > So this part does not depend on how software in guest works > and does not need software solutions. You mean in the new spec? Nice. Still I think people will try to implement the old one too given sufficiently capable HW. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
