Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Beginner
1,519 Views

Difference in DPDK and Native IXGBE driver support for 82599 NIC

Hello All,

We have been trying to make Unicast promiscuous mode work with RHEL7.3 with latest native ixgbe driver (ixgbe-5.1.3), but it seems that unicast promiscuous mode is not enabled for 82599 series nic cards in the native driver.

I can see an explicit check in ixgbe_sriov.c code, where before enabling promiscuous mode, it checks if NIC card is equal(or lower) than 82599EB, it returns.

Adding snippet below:

case IXGBEVF_XCAST_MODE_PROMISC:

if (hw->mac.type <= ixgbe_mac_82599EB)</span>

return -EOPNOTSUPP;

fctrl = IXGBE_READ_REG(hw, IXGBE_FCTRL);

if (!(fctrl & IXGBE_FCTRL_UPE)) {

/* VF promisc requires PF in promisc */

e_warn(drv,

"Enabling VF promisc requires PF in promisc\n");

return -EPERM;

}

disable = 0;

enable = IXGBE_VMOLR_BAM | IXGBE_VMOLR_ROMPE |

IXGBE_VMOLR_MPE | IXGBE_VMOLR_UPE | IXGBE_VMOLR_VPE;

break;

But, when I see the corresponding code in DPDK16.11 version, I can see the support has been added for 82599 NICs family. The feature seems to have implemented using IXGBE_VMOLR_ROPE flag.

Relevant snippet from DPDK code:

uint32_t

ixgbe_convert_vm_rx_mask_to_val(uint16_t rx_mask, uint32_t orig_val)

{

uint32_t new_val = orig_val;

if (rx_mask & ETH_VMDQ_ACCEPT_UNTAG)

new_val |= IXGBE_VMOLR_AUPE;

if (rx_mask & ETH_VMDQ_ACCEPT_HASH_MC)

new_val |= IXGBE_VMOLR_ROMPE;

if (rx_mask & ETH_VMDQ_ACCEPT_HASH_UC)

new_val |= IXGBE_VMOLR_ROPE;

if (rx_mask & ETH_VMDQ_ACCEPT_BROADCAST)

new_val |= IXGBE_VMOLR_BAM;

if (rx_mask & ETH_VMDQ_ACCEPT_MULTICAST)

new_val |= IXGBE_VMOLR_MPE;

return new_val;

}

So, can you please let us know, why such difference between supported NIC ? and can we also have similar functionality ported to the native ixgbe driver?

Other setup details

Kernel version

# uname -r

3.10.0-514.el7.x86_64

LSPCI output

# lspci -nn | grep Ether | grep 82599

81:00.0 Ethernet controller [0200]: Intel Corporation 82599ES 10-Gigabit SFI/SFP+ Network Connection [8086:10fb] (rev 01)

81:00.1 Ethernet controller [0200]: Intel Corporation 82599ES 10-Gigabit SFI/SFP+ Network Connection [8086:10fb] (rev 01)

81:10.0 Ethernet controller [0200]: Intel Corporation 82599 Ethernet Controller Virtual Function [8086:10ed] (rev 01)

# ethtool -i eth2

driver: ixgbe

version: 5.1.3

firmware-version: 0x61bd0001

expansion-rom-version:

bus-info: 0000:81:00.0

supports-statistics: yes

supports-test: yes

supports-eeprom-access: yes

supports-register-dump: yes

supports-priv-flags: yes

Regards

Pratik

0 Kudos
10 Replies
Highlighted
Community Manager
16 Views

Re: Difference in DPDK and Native IXGBE driver support for 82599 NIC

Hi Pratik,

 

 

Please allow me to check your query internally and update this thread as soon as possible.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Vince
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Beginner
16 Views

Re: Difference in DPDK and Native IXGBE driver support for 82599 NIC

Hello Vince

Any update on this ?

Thanks

Pratik

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Community Manager
16 Views

Re: Difference in DPDK and Native IXGBE driver support for 82599 NIC

Hi Pratik,

 

 

Sorry for any inconvenience. This is still being investigated.

 

 

regards,

 

Vince
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Community Manager
16 Views

Re: Difference in DPDK and Native IXGBE driver support for 82599 NIC

Hi Pratik,

 

 

With regards to if unicast VF promiscuous support will be ported to the ixgbevf driver, we will forward to our engineering team for consideration but no confirmation when the modification will be included in our ixgbevf driver. We will update you if we have update about the other query.

 

 

Thanks,

 

sharon

 

 

 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Beginner
16 Views

Re: Difference in DPDK and Native IXGBE driver support for 82599 NIC

Hello Sharon,

Thanks for looking into it and getting back.

 

I can understand, if you won't be able to provide any confirmation but will it be possible for you to provide any rough tentative timeframe? It will be very helpful.

Regards

Pratik

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Community Manager
16 Views

Re: Difference in DPDK and Native IXGBE driver support for 82599 NIC

Hi Pratik,

 

 

Thank you for your understanding. Unfortunately we do not have the time frame for the release of the driver. Thanks.

 

 

Regards,

 

sharon

 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Community Manager
16 Views

Re: Difference in DPDK and Native IXGBE driver support for 82599 NIC

Hi Pratik,

 

 

Just want to follow up any further assistance needed? Thank you.

 

 

Regards,

 

sharon
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Beginner
16 Views

Re: Difference in DPDK and Native IXGBE driver support for 82599 NIC

Hello Sharon,

No, that will be all. But, it will be really helpful if you can point me to your engineering teams thoughts on porting these changes to stock driver?

It will allow us to plan our deployments more effectively.

Regards

Pratik

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Community Manager
16 Views

Re: Difference in DPDK and Native IXGBE driver support for 82599 NIC

Hi Pratik,

 

 

Thank you for the update. I will forward your feedback to our engineering team. Thank you for your time on this matter.

 

 

regards,

 

sharon

 

 

 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Community Manager
16 Views

Re: Difference in DPDK and Native IXGBE driver support for 82599 NIC

Hi Pratik,

 

 

I am sorry to inform you that I was notified by the engineering team so far there is no further update with regards to the changes to the stock driver.

 

 

Thanks.

 

sharon
0 Kudos