On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 04:58:10PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 16/11/2018 16:43, Burakov, Anatoly: > > On 16-Nov-18 2:55 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 16/11/2018 15:37, Burakov, Anatoly: > > >> On 16-Nov-18 2:13 PM, Richardson, Bruce wrote: > > >>> From: Wiles, Keith > > >>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 5:49 AM, Burakov, Anatoly > > >>>>> On 16-Nov-18 12:45 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > >>>>>> Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.bura...@intel.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>> This is a placeholder for Python library abstracting away many of > > >>>>>>> mundane details DPDK configuration scripts have to deal with. We > > >>>>>>> need __init__.py file to make the subdirectory a package so that > > >>>>>>> Python scripts in usertools/ can find their dependencies. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.bura...@intel.com> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Doing this a better than current code, but can we go farther? > > >>>>>> I would like DPDK to get out of doing binds directly and switch to > > >>>>>> using driverctl which also handles persistent rebind on reboot. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Wasn't the objection that it's not available everywhere? (for the > > >>>>> record, i have no horse in the race - i don't much care exactly how > > >>>>> it's done) > > >>>> > > >>>> If it works on FreeBSD and Linux then I am all for it. On windows does > > >>>> it > > >>>> support this method too? > > >>> > > >>> Binding and unbinding is completely different on each OS. FreeBSD has > > >>> no overlap > > >>> of scripts with Linux, so replacing some of our tools with driverctl > > >>> won't affect > > >>> that OS. > > >>> > > >>> /Bruce > > >> > > >> ...however, we could abstract that away in our tools, and use > > >> OS-appropriate tools independently of what we're running on. There could > > >> still be value in fixing devbind everyone knows and love to work on all > > >> OS's without too much hassle :) > > > > > > Yes, easier script is always better. > > > > > > Another thought, I would like we think about integrating binding/unbinding > > > code inside EAL and bus drivers, and manage it via the PMDs. > > > There could be an option to bind on scan and unbind on rte_dev_remove. > > > > I didn't like it back when it was a thing, and i don't particularly like > > this idea now, to be honest. Port binding should not be under purview of > > the application, but is firmly in the domain of system administrator > > IMO. I don't think it's our place to change system configuration while > > we're running. > > Yes I agree, administration should be done separately. > However, there are 3 scenarios to manage properly: > - hotplug: can it be configured in advance?
I think using driverctl could help here. Only if a device is automatically bound to a suitable kernel driver, DPDK should hotplug it in. > - dynamically release device to kernel > - some drivers can share a device with the kernel > >
