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

[Lazuardi Nasution]

Hi Greg, Tonghao,

In case I use option No.2, how to make encapsulated traffic inside a VLAN?
Should I do following steps?

* Create representor ports of VFs
* Make bonding of created VFs (the VF are from member bonded PFs)
* Create VLAN of bonded VFs
* Give IP for created VLAN
* Use created IP for ovn-encap-ip (this case is for OVN with OVS-DPDK)

Best regards,

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:30 AM Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 12:07 PM Lazuardi Nasution
> <mrxlazuardin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > Any concern I should know if I choose to use option No. 1? Something
> like what Tonghao tell on previous e-mail on this thread?
> maybe different solution, about isolated mode, please  see:
> https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.html#flow-isolated-mode
>
> > Best regards,
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020, 02:24 Gregory Rose <gvrose8192 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at openvswitch.org
> > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards, Tonghao
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-discuss/attachments/20200410/580e2ff7/attachment.html>