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. Best regards, On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 22:24 Gregory Rose <gvrose8...@gmail.com> 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 disc...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
