On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:26:34AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 11:15:29 -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> > > A similar issue exists on multi-host for PFs, right? If one of the
> > > hosts is down do we still show their PF repr? IMHO yes.
> >
> > I would agree with that
n.hor...@netronome.com>; John Fastabend
> <john.fastab...@gmail.com>; Saeed Mahameed <sae...@mellanox.com>;
> Jiri Pirko <j...@mellanox.com>; Rony Efraim <ro...@mellanox.com>; Linux
> Netdev List <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
> Subject: Re: SRIOV switchdev mode
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 11:15:29 -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> > A similar issue exists on multi-host for PFs, right? If one of the
> > hosts is down do we still show their PF repr? IMHO yes.
>
> I would agree with that as well. With today's model the VF reps are
> created once a PF is put
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 04:19:15PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 10:47:00 -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> > There is also a school of thought that the VF reps could be
> > pre-allocated on the SmartNIC so that any application processing that
> > traffic would sit idle when no
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 10:47:00 -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> There is also a school of thought that the VF reps could be
> pre-allocated on the SmartNIC so that any application processing that
> traffic would sit idle when no traffic arrives on the rep, but could
> process frames that do arrive
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 09:46:38AM -0700, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
> On 4/17/2018 7:47 AM, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 04:58:05PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:30 PM, Andy Gospodarek
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mon,
On 4/17/2018 7:47 AM, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 04:58:05PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:30 PM, Andy Gospodarek
wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 07:08:39PM -0700, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
On 4/16/2018 5:39 AM, Andy
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 04:58:05PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:30 PM, Andy Gospodarek
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 07:08:39PM -0700, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
> >>
> >> On 4/16/2018 5:39 AM, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Apr
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:30 PM, Andy Gospodarek
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 07:08:39PM -0700, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
>>
>> On 4/16/2018 5:39 AM, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
>> > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 09:01:16AM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> > > On Sat, Apr 14,
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 07:08:39PM -0700, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
>
> On 4/16/2018 5:39 AM, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 09:01:16AM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 2:03 AM, Samudrala, Sridhar
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
On 4/16/2018 5:39 AM, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 09:01:16AM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 2:03 AM, Samudrala, Sridhar
wrote:
I meant between PFs on 2 compute nodes.
If the PF serves as uplink rep, it functions as a switch
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 09:01:16AM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 2:03 AM, Samudrala, Sridhar
> wrote:
>
> > I meant between PFs on 2 compute nodes.
>
> If the PF serves as uplink rep, it functions as a switch port -- applications
> don't run on
On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 2:03 AM, Samudrala, Sridhar
wrote:
> I meant between PFs on 2 compute nodes.
If the PF serves as uplink rep, it functions as a switch port -- applications
don't run on switch ports. One way to get apps to run on the host in switchdev
mode is
On 4/13/2018 1:16 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 7:49 PM, Samudrala, Sridhar
wrote:
On 4/13/2018 1:57 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
in overlay networks scheme, the uplink rep has the VTEP ip and is not connected
to the bridge, e.g you use ovs you have vf
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 7:49 PM, Samudrala, Sridhar
wrote:
> On 4/13/2018 1:57 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>>> in overlay networks scheme, the uplink rep has the VTEP ip and is not
>>> connected
>>> to the bridge, e.g you use ovs you have vf reps and vxlan ports
On 4/13/2018 1:57 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:33 PM, Samudrala, Sridhar
wrote:
On 4/12/2018 1:20 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 8:05 PM, Samudrala,
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:33 PM, Samudrala, Sridhar
> wrote:
>> On 4/12/2018 1:20 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 8:05 PM, Samudrala, Sridhar
>>>
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:33 PM, Samudrala, Sridhar
wrote:
> On 4/12/2018 1:20 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 8:05 PM, Samudrala, Sridhar
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/12/2017 11:49 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
Hi Dave
On 4/12/2018 1:20 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 8:05 PM, Samudrala, Sridhar
wrote:
On 11/12/2017 11:49 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
Hi Dave and all,
During and after the BoF on SRIOV switchdev mode, we came into a
consensus among the developers from four
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 8:05 PM, Samudrala, Sridhar
wrote:
> On 11/12/2017 11:49 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dave and all,
>>
>> During and after the BoF on SRIOV switchdev mode, we came into a
>> consensus among the developers from four different HW vendors (CC
>>
On 11/12/2017 11:49 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
Hi Dave and all,
During and after the BoF on SRIOV switchdev mode, we came into a
consensus among the developers from four different HW vendors (CC
audience) that a correct thing to do would be to disallow any new
extensions to the legacy mode.
The
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Alexander Duyck
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>
>>> all dealing with the sriov e-switch as a HW switch
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Alexander Duyck
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> all dealing with the sriov e-switch as a HW switch which should
>> be programmed
>> by the host stack according to well known industry
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Jakub Kicinski
wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:04:36 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Jakub Kicinski
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:05:08 -0800, Alexander Duyck
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:04:36 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Jakub Kicinski
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:05:08 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> >> >> We basically need to do some feasability research to see if we can
> >> >>
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Jakub Kicinski
wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:05:08 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> >> We basically need to do some feasability research to see if we can
>> >> actually meet all the requirements for switchdev on i40e. We have been
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:05:08 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> >> We basically need to do some feasability research to see if we can
> >> actually meet all the requirements for switchdev on i40e. We have been
> >> getting mixed messages where we are given a great many "yes, but" type
> >> answers.
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:00:32 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> >> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> > Lets focus on this point for a moment before discussing the
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Alexander Duyck
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Alexander Duyck
>>>
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Alexander Duyck
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Alexander Duyck
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Or
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Alexander Duyck
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Alexander Duyck
>
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Alexander Duyck
wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Alexander Duyck
>> The what we call slow path requirements are the following:
>>
>> 1. xmit on VF
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Alexander Duyck
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>>> Hi Dave and all,
>>>
>>> During and after the BoF on
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Alexander Duyck
wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> Hi Dave and all,
>>
>> During and after the BoF on SRIOV switchdev mode, we came into a
>> consensus among the developers from four
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> Hi Dave and all,
>
> During and after the BoF on SRIOV switchdev mode, we came into a
> consensus among the developers from four different HW vendors (CC
> audience) that a correct thing to do would be to disallow any new
Hi Dave and all,
During and after the BoF on SRIOV switchdev mode, we came into a
consensus among the developers from four different HW vendors (CC
audience) that a correct thing to do would be to disallow any new
extensions to the legacy mode.
The idea is to put focus on the new mode and not
36 matches
Mail list logo