Message-ID: <1329417315.30697.3.camel@lb-tlvb-eilong.il.broadcom.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:35:13 +0200
From:	"Eilon Greenstein" <eilong@...adcom.com>
To:	"Stephen Hemminger" <shemminger@...tta.com>
cc:	"Ariel Elior" <ariele@...adcom.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bnx2x: tx-switching module parameter

On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 09:49 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:05:12 +0200
> "Ariel Elior" <ariele@...adcom.com> wrote:
> 
> > In 57712 and 578xx the tx-switching module parameter allows the user to control
> > whether outgoing traffic can be loopbacked into the device in case there is a
> > relevant client for the data using the same device for rx.
> > A classic example where this is necessary is for virtualization purposes, where
> > one vm is transmitting data to another, while both use different pci functions of
> > the same port of the same nic.
> > 
> > In case there is a promiscuous client in the rx (which wants to receive all
> > data) or if the traffic is broadcast, traffic may be sent on both the loopback
> > channel and the physical wire.
> > 
> > The reason tx-switching is controlled by a module parameter is twofold:
> > 1. There is a certain performance penalty for tx-switching because:
> >    a. every packet must be compared against the receiver clients.
> >    b. duplicated traffic being loopbacked can consume a significant portion of
> >    the overall bandwidth, depending on the scenario.
> > 2. Tx-switching doesn't make much sense as a per function parameter, but should
> > rather be controlled uniformly for the  entire device. The reason is that if one
> > interface wants to be able to send data on the loopback it is not enough to
> > enable tx-switching for that interface, as the target interface must also
> > register its rx classification information where the transmitting interface can
> > find it. One would still have to use the module parameter in each VM, though.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ariel Elior <ariele@...adcom.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Eilon Greenstein <eilong@...adcom.com>
> 
> Module parameters are the hardware vendors friend, but the system
> integrators nightmare. Although you think your hardware is special
> but it isn't some other vendor will have same idea, how is user and
> distribution supposed to control it?

Actually, module parameters require more explanations and cause more
questions since they are unique to the device than any standard way - so
we do prefer a standard way of doing things. In this case, we looked at
other driver and scanned the mailing list history to see if we missed
some discussion - but could not found anything. It is possible that for
some HW the cost of doing this internal switching is low and therefore
enabled by default and it is possible that some HW do not support it.
This applies only to multi-functions (more than one PF sharing the same
network port) devices and is usually required in VMs which are using
physical device assignment since most multi-function environments are
controlled by the switch which is looping back the packets.

But netdev is a great place to ask - are there other vendors out there
that requires this control over internal switching? If so, we can define
a new ethtool command. The alternative of using the ethtool private
flags seems just as inconvenient from administrators point of view and
also seem less appropriate since this configuration is more likely to be
the same for all PFs on the same machine.




--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists