> On Mar 7, 2019, at 11:52 AM, Damjan Marion via Lists.Fd.Io > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 7 Mar 2019, at 18:33, Matthew Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> At startup, the DPDK plugin attempts to take over most PCI network devices >> which are supported by a PMD and are not in use by the kernel. It seems that >> vmxnet3 is an exception to this - if vmxnet3 devices are present, they are >> blacklisted unless they were explicitly whitelisted in startup.conf. I >> presume that this is so you could use the vmxnet3 plugin to manage those >> devices. >> >> Would it be acceptable to have the DPDK plugin treat vmxnet3 like other >> device types unless it's explicitly blacklisted? We use VPP on various >> platforms with different types of physical and virtual NICs. Since we don't >> know at build time how many interfaces will be attached to a VM or what all >> of the PCI addresses of those devices will be, it's hard to package a >> default startup.conf that whitelists the right device IDs for a given VM. >> The default behavior of the DPDK plugin has been very useful because it >> usually makes all of the available interfaces manageable when a new VM is >> brought up. In order to make vmxnet3 interfaces manageable on a newly >> created VM, we would need to run something at startup to figure out which >> vxmnet3 devices are available and explicitly whitelist them in the DPDK >> plugin configuration or to set them up to be managed by the vmxnet3 plugin. >> This is certainly possible, but it would be nice if we could avoid the extra >> complication and have vmxnet3 devices behave like other devices. >> >> If we submitted a patch that removed the auto-blacklisting of vmxnet3, would >> there be any objections to that? > > My preference is that it stays as it is so people can have choice instead of > being forced to use dpdk implementation. > You can easily write simple script which goes trough /sys/bus/pci/devices and > whitelists whatever you like…
Damjan, The issue here is (default?) behavior. Yes, we can simply carry a patch to reverse the behavior of vmxnet3, but the point is that it behaves differently than the (other) DPDK PMDs. Jim
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#12461): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/12461 Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/30299692/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
