> -----Original Message----- > From: Burakov, Anatoly > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 1:40 AM > To: Richardson, Bruce; dev at dpdk.org > Subject: RE: vfio detection > > Hi Bruce, > > > I have a number of NIC ports which were working correctly yesterday and are > > bound correctly to the igb_uio driver - and I want to keep using them > > through the igb_uio driver for now, not vfio. However, whenever I run a > > dpdk application today, I find that the vfio kernel module is getting loaded > > each time - even after I manually remove it, and verify that it has been > > removed by checking lsmod. Is this expected? If so, why are we loading the > > vfio driver when I just want to continue using igb_uio which works fine? > > Can you elaborate a bit on what do you mean by "loading vfio driver"? Do you > mean the vfio-pci kernel gets loaded by DPDK? I certainly didn't put in any > code > that would automatically load that driver, and certainly not binding devices > to it.
The kernel module called just "vfio" is constantly getting reloaded, and there is always a "/dev/vfio" directory, which triggers the vfio code handling every time I run dpdk. > > > Secondly, then, when testpmd or any other app loads, it automatically tries > > to map the NIC using vfio and then aborts on the very first NIC port when it > > fails to do so. > > This shouldn't happen, unless you have a device bound to VFIO and have another > device in the same IOMMU group that is bound to something else. Can you > provide a log of what you are seeing? Log of testpmd run attached. > > > This a) prevents the port from being mapped using igb_uio, and > > b) for ports which are meant to stay under linux control, forces me to start > > enumerating ports using blacklist or whitelisting, rather than having things > > "just work" on a properly configured system as before, i.e. if a port is > > bound > > to igb_uio or vfio it is used, if not bound, it is ignored. Again, is this > > by design > > and expected, because it seems a major regression in usability? > > I think automatic port unbinding and binding was removed, so this again > shouldn't happen at all. > > It would be useful to have logs for all of these described situations, > because we > certainly didn't encounter any of that during the validation cycle. > Log of testpmd run attached. If you need any more debugging info, let me know. I'll also test out the patch you just posted to the list - see if it makes any difference, and I'll send on a log from it. /Bruce
