Date:	Mon, 12 Oct 2015 04:39:47 +0000
From:	Premkumar Jonnala <pjonnala@...adcom.com>
To:	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
CC:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"siva.mannem.lnx@...il.com" <siva.mannem.lnx@...il.com>,
	"stephen@...workplumber.org" <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	"roopa@...ulusnetworks.com" <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	"andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v3 3/4] bridge: push bridge setting ageing_time
 down to switchdev

> 2015-10-10 15:41 GMT-07:00 Vivien Didelot
> <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>:
> > On Oct. Saturday 10 (41) 11:09 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 05:56:19PM CEST, vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com
> wrote:
> >> >On Oct. Saturday 10 (41) 09:04 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> >> Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 04:53:52AM CEST, sfeldma@...il.com wrote:
> >> >> >On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Premkumar Jonnala
> <pjonnala@...adcom.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> >>> From: sfeldma@...il.com [mailto:sfeldma@...il.com]
> >> >> >>> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 7:53 AM
> >> >> >>> To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
> >> >> >>> Cc: davem@...emloft.net; jiri@...nulli.us;
> siva.mannem.lnx@...il.com;
> >> >> >>> Premkumar Jonnala; stephen@...workplumber.org;
> >> >> >>> roopa@...ulusnetworks.com; andrew@...n.ch;
> f.fainelli@...il.com;
> >> >> >>> vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com
> >> >> >>> Subject: [PATCH net-next v3 3/4] bridge: push bridge setting
> ageing_time down
> >> >> >>> to switchdev
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> From: Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Use SWITCHDEV_F_SKIP_EOPNOTSUPP to skip over ports in bridge
> that don't
> >> >> >>> support setting ageing_time (or setting bridge attrs in general).
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> If push fails, don't update ageing_time in bridge and return err to user.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> If push succeeds, update ageing_time in bridge and run gc_timer now
> to
> >> >> >>> recalabrate when to run gc_timer next, based on new ageing_time.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Signed-off-by: Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
> >> >> >>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
> >> >> >
> >> >> ><snip>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> +int br_set_ageing_time(struct net_bridge *br, u32 ageing_time)
> >> >> >>> +{
> >> >> >>> +     struct switchdev_attr attr = {
> >> >> >>> +             .id = SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_BRIDGE_AGEING_TIME,
> >> >> >>> +             .flags = SWITCHDEV_F_SKIP_EOPNOTSUPP,
> >> >> >>> +             .u.ageing_time = ageing_time,
> >> >> >>> +     };
> >> >> >>> +     unsigned long t = clock_t_to_jiffies(ageing_time);
> >> >> >>> +     int err;
> >> >> >>> +
> >> >> >>> +     if (t < BR_MIN_AGEING_TIME || t > BR_MAX_AGEING_TIME)
> >> >> >>> +             return -ERANGE;
> >> >> >>> +
> >> >> >>> +     err = switchdev_port_attr_set(br->dev, &attr);
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> A thought - given that the ageing time is not a per-bridge-port attr, why
> are we using a "port based api"
> >> >> >> to pass the attribute down?  May be I'm missing something here?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I think Florian raised the same point earlier.  Sigh, I think this
> >> >> >should be addressed....v4 coming soon...thanks guys for keeping the
> >> >> >standard high.
> >> >>
> >> >> Scott, can you tell us how do you want to address this? I like the
> >> >> current implementation.
> >> >
> >> >Scott, didn't you have a plan to add a struct device for the parent of
> >> >switchdev ports?
> >> >
> >> >I think it would be good to introduce such device with an helper to
> >> >retrieve this upper parent, and move the switchdev ops to this guy.
> >> >
> >> >So switchdev drivers may implement such API calls:
> >> >
> >> >    .obj_add(struct device *swdev, struct switchdev_obj *obj);
> >> >
> >> >    .port_obj_add(struct device *swdev, struct net_device *port,
> >> >                  struct switchdev_obj *obj);
> >> >
> >> >Then switchdev code may have a parent API and the current port API may
> >> >look like this:
> >> >
> >> >    int switchdev_port_obj_add(struct net_device *dev,
> >> >                               struct switchdev_obj *obj)
> >> >    {
> >> >        struct device *swdev = switchdev_get_parent(dev);
> >> >        int err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >> >
> >> >        if (swdev && swdev->switchdev_ops &&
> >> >            swdev->switchdev_ops->port_obj_add)
> >> >            err = swdev->switchdev_ops->port_obj_add(swdev, dev, obj);
> >> >
> >> >        return err;
> >> >    }
> >>
> >> Fro the record, I don't see any reason for this "device". It would just
> >> introduce unnecessary complexicity. So far, we are fine without it.
> >
> > I wouldn't say that. I beleive that an Ethernet switch deserves its
> > struct device in the tree, since it is a physical chip, like any other.
> 
> Agreed, but gating these patches because we do not yet have a device
> driver model for an Ethernet switch outside of its individual ports
> does not seem like it hurts the current patch series, nor the existing
> model (and future).

I don't think we have to gate this patch because of this change, but I wanted to
raise this issue because it didn't seem right to use "port level" API when what we
want to configure is really a "bridge level" attribute.

> 
> >
> > Configuring it through one of its port (net_device) is fine, since you
> > want to change the port behavior, and Linux config is on per-port basis.
> >
> > But the complexity is already introduced in the struct net_device with
> > the switchdev_ops. These ops really belong to the parent device, not to
> > all of its ports.
> 
> I am not sure if complexity is the correct term here, bloat (to some
> extent) maybe, since with what you are suggesting we could save one
> set of function pointers per-port, and instead move that to a
> global/switch-wide device implementing these operations. In essence,
> there will be per-port switchdev_ops, bridge-specific, and maybe in
> the future switch device specific.

This is right.  Going forward, we will have methods/attributes that are bridge specific,
router specific, etc.  I think having a right model at the start will go a long way in
helping keep the code-base extensible in the future.

> 
> >
> > Ideally a switch device would be registered with this set of operations,
> > creates its net_devices, and will be accessible from a port net_device
> > through a netdev helper function.
> 
> I think the core of the discussion for a proper Ethernet switch device
> model is precisely whether we want to have a special network device to
> configure the switch as a whole. It sure would represent one facet of
> the switch device, but not everything else for which we are still
> trying to find out what that is.

Agree.  We will have models other than switch device, but given that we are running
into switch-level attributes, it would be great if we can introduce that concept now,
and add more abstractions/models as we come across new attributes.

-Prem

> --
> Florian

Powered by blists - more mailing lists