WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] VF as default interface on dom0

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 09:20:06AM -0800, Rose, Gregory V wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xen-devel-
> >bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Simon Horman
> >Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:38 AM
> >To: Satish Chowdhury
> >Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] VF as default interface on dom0
> >
> >On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 01:19:51PM +0530, Satish Chowdhury wrote:
> >> Hi Simon,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the reply and reproducing the problem.
> >>
> >> I didn't tried with pv_ops kernel yet.
> >>
> >> I guess the issue is not with the driver.  As I understand, the
> >behavior is
> >> because of the L2 filtering done by 82576 NIC.
> >>
> >> The NIC filters frames based on MAC address that are assigned to VFs.
> >In my
> >> experiment, the arp reply that reaches the NIC, has mac address of
> >interface
> >> on VM(domU). NIC's filtering based on VF MAC address fail. So, packet
> >is not
> >> queued to VF interface.  On dom0 a bridge is created, with VF and
> >domUs
> >> virtual interfaces (no PF).
> >> If we group PF interface also into this bridge, because of bridge
> >learning
> >> functionality, the packet get routed to the virtual interface and
> >finally to
> >> VM.
> >>
> >> I am not 100% sure about above understanding of mine. Please, me know
> >if you
> >> think i am wrong.
> >
> >I suspect you are right, though I was hoping that its a problem
> >that could be fixed by the driver configuring the card slightly
> >differently.
> >
> >It would probably be good to post your problem report to the
> >e1000-devel and/or netdev lists to get some more eye's on it.
> >
> >
> [Rose, Gregory V] 
> 
> I must have missed some previous email on this subject but from the context 
> here I'm guessing that you're trying to put the PF driver on a bridge so that 
> you can support some emulated connections in some VMs and some VFs in other 
> VMs?
> 
> Is that the case?

I'm unsure of the motivation but the problem is that putting a VF on
the bridge (i.e VF is pethX) doesn't seem to work correctly as some
reply packets end up on the PF instead.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>