Message-ID: <VI1PR0501MB227144934A3FE9460D6970E5D1720@VI1PR0501MB2271.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Mar 2019 19:46:27 +0000
From:   Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
CC:     Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "michal.lkml@...kovi.net" <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC net-next 0/8] Introducing subdev bus and devlink extension



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 7:35 PM
> To: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
> Cc: Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>; netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org; michal.lkml@...kovi.net; davem@...emloft.net;
> gregkh@...uxfoundation.org; Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
> Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/8] Introducing subdev bus and devlink extension
> 
> Parav, please wrap your responses to at most 80 characters.
> This is hard to read.
> 
Sorry about it. I will wrap now on.

> On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 04:41:01 +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 2:04 PM
> > > To: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>; Or Gerlitz
> > > <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
> > > Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> > > michal.lkml@...kovi.net; davem@...emloft.net;
> > > gregkh@...uxfoundation.org; Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/8] Introducing subdev bus and devlink
> > > extension
> > >
> > > On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 23:37:44 -0600, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > > Requirements for above use cases:
> > > > --------------------------------
> > > > 1. We need a generic user interface & core APIs to create sub
> > > > devices from a parent pci device but should be generic enough for
> > > > other parent devices 2. Interface should be vendor agnostic 3.
> > > > User should be able to set device params at creation time 4. In
> > > > future if needed, tool should be able to create passthrough device
> > > > to map to a virtual machine
> > >
> > > Like a mediated device?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/vfio-mediated-device.txt
> > > https://www.dpdk.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/35/2018/06/Mediated-
> > > Devices-Better-Userland-IO.pdf
> > >
> > > Other than pass-through it is entirely unclear to me why you'd need a
> bus.
> > > (Or should I say VM pass through or DPDK?)  Could you clarify why
> > > the need for a bus?
> > >
> > A bus follow standard linux kernel device driver model to attach a
> > driver to specific device. Platform device with my limited
> > understanding looks a hack/abuse of it based on documentation [1], but
> > it can possibly be an alternative to bus if it looks fine to Greg and
> > others.
> 
> I grok from this text that the main advantage you see is the ability to choose
> a driver for the subdevice.
> 
Yes.

> > > My thinking is that we should allow spawning subports in devlink and
> > > if user specifies "passthrough" the device spawned would be an mdev.
> >
> > devlink device is much more comprehensive way to create sub-devices
> > than sub-ports for at least below reasons.
> >
> > 1. devlink device already defines device->port relation which enables
> > to create multiport device.
> 
> I presume that by devlink device you mean devlink instance?  Yes, this part
> I'm following.
> 
Yes -> 'struct devlink' 
> > subport breaks that.
> 
> Breaks what?  The ability to create a devlink instance with multiple ports?
> 
Right.

> > 2. With bus model, it enables us to load driver of same vendor or
> > generic one such a vfio in future.
> 
> Yes, sorry, I'm not an expert on mdevs, but isn't that the goal of those?
> Could you go into more detail why not just use mdevs?
> 
I am novice at mdev level too. mdev or vfio mdev.
Currently by default we bind to same vendor driver, but when it was created as passthrough device, vendor driver won't create netdevice or rdma device for it.
And vfio/mdev or whatever mature available driver would bind at that point.

> > 3. Devices live on the bus, mapping a subport to 'struct device' is
> > not intuitive.
> 
> Are you saying that the main devlink instance would not have any port
> information for the subdevices?
> 
Right, this newly created devlink device is the control point of its port(s).

> Devices live on a bus.  Software constructs - depend on how one wants to
> model them - don't have to.
> 
> > 4. sub-device allows to use existing devlink port, registers, health
> > infrastructure to sub devices, which otherwise need to be duplicated
> > for ports.
> 
> Health stuff is not tied to a port, I'm not following you.  You can create a
> reporter per port, per ACL rule or per SB or per whatever your heart desires..
> 
Instead of creating multiple reporters and inventing these reporter naming schemes,
creating devlink instance leverage all health reporting done for a devliink instance.
So whatever is done for instance A (parent), can be available for instance B (subdev).

> > 5. Even though current devlink devices are networking devices, there
> > is nothing restricts it to be that way. So subport is a restricted
> > view.
> > 6. devlink device already covers
> > port sub-object, hence creating devlink device is desired.
> >
> > > > 5. A device can have multiple ports
> > >
> > > What does this mean, in practice?  You want to spawn a subdev which
> > > can access both ports?  That'd be for RDMA use cases, more than
> > > Ethernet, right?  (Just clarifying :))
> > >
> > Yep, you got it right. :-)
> >
> > > > So how is it done?
> > > > ------------------
> > > > (a) user in control
> > > > To address above requirements, a generic tool iproute2/devlink is
> > > > extended for sub device's life cycle.
> > > > However a devlink tool and its kernel counter part is not
> > > > sufficient to create protocol agnostic devices on a existing PCI
> > > > bus.
> > >
> > > "Protocol agnostic"?...  What does that mean?
> > >
> > Devlink works on bus,device model. It doesn't matter what class of
> > device is. For example, for pci class can be anything. So newly
> > created sub-devices are not limited to netdev/rdma devices. Its
> > agnostic to protocol. More importantly, we don't want to create these
> > sub-devices who bus type is 'pci'. Because as described below, PCI has
> > its addressing scheme and pci bus must not have mix-n match devices.
> >
> > So probably better wording should be,
> > 'a devlink tool and its kernel counterpart is not sufficient to create
> > sub-devices of same class as that of PCI device.
> 
> Let me clarify - for networking devices the partition will most likely end up as
> a subport, but its not a requirement that each partition must be a subport..
> The question was about the necessity to invent a new bus, and have every
> resource have a struct device..
> 

A device object and bus connecting all software objects correctly. This includes,
1. devlink bus/name handle based access
2. matching such device in sysfs
3. parent child hierarchy in sysfs
4. ability to bind different driver
5. multi-ports per device
6. still usable for single port use case
7. parameters setting at devlink instance level
8. parent-child relation handling power mgmt
9. follows standard linux driver model

Some are achievable to through mfd too, instead of subdev bus.
Will follow Greg's guidance on this.

> > > > (b) subdev bus
> > > > A given bus defines well defined addressing scheme. Creating sub
> > > > devices on existing PCI bus with a different naming scheme is just
> > > > weird. So, creating well named devices on appropriate bus is
> > > > desired.
> > >
> > > What's that address scheme you're referring to, you seem to assign
> > > IDs in sequence?
> > >
> > Yes. a device on subdev bus follows standard linux driver model based
> > id assignment scheme = u32. And devices are well named as 'subdev0'.
> > Prefix + id as the default scheme of core driver model.
> 
> I thought "well defined addressing scheme" means I can address subdevice X
> of device Y with your scheme.  I can't, it's just an global ID.  Thanks for
> clarifying.
> 
It's a global ID on the subdev bus.
subdevice X are listed under parent device Y.

We did consider embedding parent PCI address in child was considered, but its duplicate info that doesn't seem worth.

devlink will show its parent device link, like
$devlink dev show
pci/0000:05:00.0
subdev/subdev0 parent pci/0000:05:00.0

> > > The things key thing for me on the netdev side is what is the
> > > forwarding model to this new entity.  Is this basically VMDQ?
> > > Should we just go ahead and mandate "switchdev mode" here?
> > >
> > It will follow the switchdev mode, but it not limited to it.
> > Switchdev mode is for the eswitch functionality. There isn't a need to
> > combine this. rdma Infiniband will be able to use this without
> > switchdev mode.
> 
> It's the devlink instance that's in "switchdev mode", regardless of type of any
> of its ports.
> 
I didn't follow your comment.
What I wanted to say, is, 
When $devlink dev add pci/0000:05:00.0 is done,
devlink instance pci/0000:05:00.0, doesn't have to be in switchdev mode.
We do not plan to support switchdev, but it is not devlink's domain to enforce it.

switchdev mode has nothing to do with sriov, even though it might have started with that vision.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists