[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e650d15a-3fa6-5c76-8eee-ba21df3230f2@bootlin.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:54:29 +0200
From: Alexis Lothoré <alexis.lothore@...tlin.com>
To: Sunil Kovvuri <sunil.kovvuri@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
paul.arola@...us.com, scott.roberts@...us.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: implement egress tbf
qdisc for 6393x family
Hi Sunil,
On 6/12/23 08:34, Sunil Kovvuri wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 11:08 PM Alexis Lothoré <alexis.lothore@...tlin.com
> <mailto:alexis.lothore@...tlin.com>> wrote:
>
> On 6/9/23 19:16, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >> Yes, I can do that (or maybe -EINVAL to match Vladimir's comment ?). I think
> >> it's worth mentioning that I encountered an issue regarding those values
> during
> >> tests: I use tc program to set the tbf, and I observed that tc does not even
> >> reach kernel to set the qdisc if we pass no burst/latency value OR if we
> set it
> >> to 0. So tc enforces right on userspace side non-zero value for those
> >> parameters, and I have passed random values and ignored them on kernel side.
> >
> > That is not good. Please take a look around and see if any other
> > driver offloads TBF, and what they do with burst.
> >
> >> Checking available doc about tc-tbf makes me feel like that indeed a TBF
> qdisc
> >> command without burst or latency value makes no sense, except my use case can
> >> not have such values. That's what I struggled a bit to find a proper qdisc to
> >> match hardware cap. I may fallback to a custom netlink program to improve
> testing.
> >
> > We don't really want a custom application, since we want users to use
> > TC to set this up.
> >
> > Looking at the 6390 datasheet, Queue Counter Registers, mode 8 gives
> > the number of egress buffers for a port. You could validate that the
> > switch has at least the requested number of buffers assigned to the
> > port? There is quite a bit you can configure, so maybe there is a way
> > to influence the number of buffers, so you can actually implement the
> > burst parameter?
>
> Thanks for the pointers. I will check the egress buffers configuration and see
> if I can come up with something better
>
>
> For setting up simple per-port ratelimit, instead of TBF isn't "egress matchall"
> suitable here ?
I guess you are suggesting matchall + policer ? At first glance, I see no
obvious elements showing if one or another is more relevant. From user point of
view, controls are pretty much the same (rate + burst at least), but it looks
like policer is more of a pass/drop action, contrary to TBF which has some delay
notions, so it would solve the latency/limit absence of control. I am not sure
how it would look like on kernel side and how it would behave (how is managed
the filter, how can the policer be offloaded). I see some port_policer_add/del
callbacks in DSA, I will take a look at that as well and check differences with
TBF. Thanks for the suggestion.
Alexis
>
> Thanks,
> Sunil.
--
Alexis Lothoré, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists