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

Gregory Rose gvrose8192 at gmail.com
Wed Apr 8 19:24:38 UTC 2020


On 4/8/2020 8:32 AM, Lazuardi Nasution wrote:
> 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.

Hi Lazuardi,

the configuration matrix is dependent on your usage model.  Option No. 1 
will work fine I'm sure and if it fits your needs then go with it.

- Greg

> 
> 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
>>
>>
> 


More information about the discuss mailing list