From owner-freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 13 21:45:06 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 731CC106566C; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 21:45:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jfvogel@gmail.com) Received: from mail-yx0-f182.google.com (mail-yx0-f182.google.com [209.85.213.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 111948FC0A; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 21:45:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yxh35 with SMTP id 35so904983yxh.13 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 13:45:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=CWPROxw97NzeLOIl9kqOvWFFtmqLTxfw0rBXKlp3WZE=; b=T072ITr4lE/t5WjvO4AxB14siJ4G3gMhHMRSTgAfIXa2vCDha0+dcnsbKyh33OUjKd ZM8fm3hP4OdkQz+RlXOUE4yCwWSeeYOkDNZ2nog/Cr7CZjIA6KlmnJ9C9kLPoOIc0vkC N9OwwtrndgmlHtmSbD8lxzsMr8BAwZI7o/UMU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=p1ov2uvkYLK6v4I2ciOuyEpodjgkQJyXiO3wr86Qnnmj1uL7hsux2itoS7mB1aUzk6 gNFydHO7ECmN65c72et8QFYEDTuq0F0gAW/Nq6Htu7VW9NUBF6BwSviDg5MW8QnbZ7u6 oJ7KaBEc+I1XxjJPDPUCgtPkkjUMcoS0SWnU8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.212.14 with SMTP id k14mr347131ybg.73.1294955105310; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 13:45:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.147.182.20 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 13:45:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 13:45:05 -0800 Message-ID: From: Jack Vogel To: Brandon Gooch Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Jack F Vogel , Ryan Stone , freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Would there be interest in virtualization of the ixgbe driver? X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 21:45:06 -0000 Doesn't matter, I have a coworker who handles Solaris, he can probably give me some info :) SRIOV allows you to partition the device at the PCI level and then you can 'assign' to a virtual guest or whatever, its still the most desireable to me. Jack On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Brandon Gooch wrote: > On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Ryan Stone wrote: > > At $WORK I've implemented an extension of the ixgbe driver that > > provides multiple virtualized ixgbe interfaces. The implementation > > uses the 8259[89]'s virtualization features, so the rx and tx paths of > > the virtual interfaces are completely independent. From the > > perspective of everything above the ixgbe driver, it's as if there are > > multiple physical interfaces present. > > > > The use-case for the feature at $WORK is very specific to our > > architecture, but I can imagine that having hardware-based virtual > > interfaces could be useful with jails, vnet or when using FreeBSD as > > the host OS for something like VirtualBox. I'm really not very > > familiar with what people do or want to do with virtualization on > > FreeBSD, so I don't have any kind of idea as to whether this feature > > could be useful to the community. > > > > Currently the code is not in a state that could be submitted to jfv@ > > for consideration: I disabled certain features like RSS because I > > didn't need them in my implementation, and interfaces can only be > > created at boot(via tunable). Before I start working on cleaning it > > up, I want to know if people think that such a feature would be > > worthwhile or useful to them. > > > > The way that I envision this working is that you'd run something like > > "ifconfig vix0 create parent ix1" to create a new virtual interface > > sharing the same physical interface as ix1. From that point on, vix0 > > would be a completely different interface from ix1, with its own MAC, > > vlan table, IPs, etc. > > It would be nice to split up the hardware for use with vnet jails. The > virtualization technique you are describing -- it sounds similar to > how network device virtualization is done in the Solaris "Project > Crossbow" implementation. Can you comment on this? > > In other words, would we have the ability to have a vnet jail tied to > specific hardware resources (Rx/Tx rings with their own DMA channels > and interrupts, etc...). > > I'm sorry, I don't have a link to the "Project Crossbow" features to > which I'm referring. > > -Brandon >