[ovs-discuss] Combined Kernel and DPDK with Same Interface

[Lazuardi Nasution]

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 <gvrose8192 at 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-discuss/attachments/20200408/4a0e1ecc/attachment.html>