Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 15:23:24 +0300 From: "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@yandex-team.ru> To: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: cxgbe and netmap Message-ID: <54A7DF3C.7090905@yandex-team.ru> In-Reply-To: <20150102184640.GB28813@ox> References: <54A6BFFE.5080103@yandex-team.ru> <20150102184640.GB28813@ox>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02.01.2015 21:46, Navdeep Parhar wrote: > On Fri, Jan 02, 2015 at 06:57:50PM +0300, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: >> Hello list! >> >> FreeBSD has netmap support for chelsio T5 cards, which is amazing. >> The great thing about implementation is that you can play with >> traffic-generating applications without affecting "main" OS interface, >> which has always been a problem for Intel cards. >> However, this approach (having additional netmap-only ifp) turns to be a >> bit problematic for netmap-based networking elements participating in >> routing. >> >> In Intel case you can configure all your interfaces, run routing daemon, >> run netmap application and punt all to-host traffic to kernel via host >> pipes. >> It looks like I can't do this using current implementation: mac >> addresses are different for main/netmap interfaces so I can't run >> routing daemon on main interface (or sub-interfaces). >> I also can't run routing daemon on top of ncxgbe* interface since it >> appears to ignore non-netmap-derived traffic.. >> >> Is it possible to make ncxgbe* interfaces behave more like ordinary ones? >> > Yes, I need to write a simple transmit and receive handler for the > non-netmap traffic on the ncxgbe/ncxl interfaces. This is a bit > complicated because the normal rx runs in a mode where 1 rx buffer does > not always equal 1 rx frame. > > Now that netmap is in GENERIC, it may be best to carve out a separate > cxgbe_netmap module that can be loaded by those who want to use netmap > on top of cxgbe/cxl hardware. So no more magic 'n' interfaces by > default (some people were caught by surprise at the sudden appearance of > the 'n' interfaces on HEAD), and fully functional 'n' interfaces as soon > as you load the additional module. > > What do you and other netmap users think? I'm open to taking this Having loadable netmap support would be great - this approach looks much more flexible. > driver's netmap support in whatever direction the users want it to go. > > Regards, > Navdeep
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54A7DF3C.7090905>