Message-ID: <5774C6B3.1000901@intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:13:55 -0700
From:	"Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
To:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
CC:	Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>,
	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Hadar Hen-Zion <hadarh@...lanox.com>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
	Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
	Tal Anker <Ankertal@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 08/16] net/devlink: Add E-Switch mode control



On 6/29/2016 11:25 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 06:04:39AM CEST, john.fastabend@...il.com wrote:
>> On 16-06-29 08:35 PM, John Fastabend wrote:
>>> On 16-06-29 03:09 PM, John Fastabend wrote:
>>>> On 16-06-29 02:33 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 7:35 PM, John Fastabend
>>>>> <john.fastabend@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 16-06-29 07:48 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/28/2016 10:31 PM, John Fastabend wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 16-06-28 12:12 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Why?! Please, leave legacy be legacy. Use the new mode for
>>>>>>>>> implementing new features. Don't make things any more complicated :(
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> Maybe I'm reading to much into the devlink flag names and if instead
>>>>>>>> you use a switch like the following,
>>>>>>>>     VF representer : enable/disable the creation VF netdev's to represent
>>>>>>>>                      the virtual functions on the PF
>>>>>>>> Much less complicated then magic switching between forwarding logic IMO
>>>>>>>> and you don't whack a default configuration that an entire stack (e.g.
>>>>>>>> libvirt) has been built to use.
>>>>>>> Re letting the user to observe/modify the rules added by the
>>>>>>> driver/firmware while legacy mode. Even if possible with bridge/fdb, it
>>>>>>> will be really pragmatical and doesn't make sense to get that donefor
>>>>>>> the TC subsystem. So this isn't a well defined solution and anyway, as
>>>>>>> you said, legacy mode enhancements is a different exercise. Personally,
>>>>>>> I agree with Jiri, that we should legacy be legacyand focus on adding
>>>>>>> the new model.
>>>>>> The ixgbe driver already supports bridge and tc commands without the VF
>>>>>> representer.  Adding the VF representer to these drivers just extends
>>>>>> the existing support so we have an identifier for VFs and now the
>>>>>> redirect action works and the fdb commands can specify the VF netdevs.
>>>>>> I don't see this as a problem because we already do it today with
>>>>>> 'ip' and bridge tools.
>>>>> To be precise, for both ixgbe and mlx5, the existing tc support
>>>>> (u32/ixgbe, flower/mlx5) is not for switching functionality but rather
>>>>> for NIC-ish one, e.g drop, mark, etc. Indeed in ixgbe you added
>>>>> redirect to VF, but this is only for south --> north (wire --> VF)
>>>>> traffic, w.o the VF rep you can't do the other way around.
>>>>>
>>>> Correct which is why we need the VF rep. So we are completely in
>>>> sync there.
>>>>
>>>>> Just to clarify, to what exact bridge command support did you refer for ixgbe?
>>>> 'bridge fdb' commands are supported today on the PF. But its the
>>>> same story as above we need the VF rep to also use it on the
>>>> VF representer
>>>>
>>>> Also 'bridge link' command for veb/vepa modes is supported and the
>>>> other link attributes could be supported with additional driver
>>>> support. No need for core changes here. But again yes only on the
>>>> PF so again we need the VF reps.
>>>>
>>>>> The forwarding done in the legacy mode is not well defined, and
>>>>> different across vendors, adding there the VF reps will not make it
>>>>> any better b/c some steering rules will be set by tc/bridge offloads
>>>>> while other rules will be put by the driver.
>>>>> I don't see how this takes us to better place.
>>>> In legacy mode or any other mode you are defining some default policy
>>>> and rules.
>>>>
>>>> In the legacy mode we use mac/vlan assigned l2 forwarding entries in the
>>>> hardware fdb which are seen when you query 'ip link' and 'bridge fdb'
>>>> today. And similarly can be modified today using 'ip link' and 'bridge
>>>> fdb' at least on the intel devices. Its not undefined in any way with
>>>> a quick query of the tools we can learn exactly what the configuration
>>>> is and even change it. This works fairly well with existing controllers
>>>> and stacks.
>>>>
>>>> The limitations are 'ip' only supports a single MAC address per VF and
>>>> 'tc' doesn't work on VF ports because when the VF is assigned to a VM
>>>> or namespace we lose visibility of it. Providing a VF rep for this
>>>> solves both of those problems.
>>>>
>>>> In this new mode the default policy is to create a default miss rule
>>>> and implement no l2 forwarding rules. Unfortunately not all hardware
>>>> in use supports this default miss rule case but would still benefit
>>>> from having a VF rep. So we shouldn't make this a stipulation for
>>>> enabling VF reps. It also changes a default policy that has been in
>>>> place for years without IMO at least any compelling reason. It will
>>>> be easy enough to change the default l2 policy to a flow based model
>>>> with a few bridge/tc commands.
>>>>
>>>>>> We are also slightly in disagreement about what the default should be
>>>>>> with VF netdevs. I think the default should be the same L2 mac/vlan
>>>>>> switch behavior and see no reason to change it by default just because
>>>>>> we added VF netdevs. The infrastructure libvirt/openstack/etc are built
>>>>>> around this default today. But I guess nothing in this series specifies
>>>>>> what the defaults of any given driver will be. VF netdevs are still
>>>>>> useful even on older hardware that only supports mac/vlan forwarding to
>>>>>> expose statistics and send/receive control frames such as lldp.
>>>>> Again, this is not about default engineering... and using the VF reps
>>>>> (not VF netdevs) in legacy mode only make it more cryptic to my
>>>>> opinion. I agree some changes would be needed in openstack to support
>>>>> the new model, but this is how progress is made... you can't always
>>>>> make all layer above you unchanged. Note that the VF reps behave the
>>>>> same as tap devices (v-switch doing xmit on tap --> recv in VM, VM
>>>>> sends --> recv on tap into the v-switch), so the change in open-stack
>>>>> would not be that big.
>>>>>
>>>> But in this case we have no reason to break the stack above us. The
>>>> currently deployed usage is L2 mac/vlan. As soon as you bind a vSwitch
>>>> or whatever mgmt agent to the device it can go ahead and manage the
>>>> switch putting it in the correct mode using the tooling in 'bridge' and
>>>> 'tc'.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why I think the VF representer is a per port ethtool flag and not a
>>>>>> devlink option is my use case might be to assign a PF into a VM or
>>>>>> namespace where I don't want VF netdevs.
>>>>> again, we think the correct place to set how the eswitch is managed is
>>>>> through eswitch manager PCI devices and not net devices and hence
>>>>> ethtool is not the way to go.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, how do you want your e-switch to be managed in this case?
>>>>>
>>>> In the case where I don't create vf netdevs on one of the PFs I'll
>>>> manage the forwarding tables via the existing mechanisms 'ip' and
>>>> 'bridge'. However its likely not a big deal because 'ip' and 'bridge'
>>>> will continue to work even if VF reps are around. The ethtool/devlink
>>>> comment was more about pointing out that creating VFs does not
>>>> require you to manage your switch any differently. Its useful even on
>>>> devices that can't support flow based forwarding for statistics and
>>>> setting port attributes like mtu, etc.
>>>>
>>>> .John
>>>>
>>> Probably bad form to respond to my own email but just to highlight how
>>> subtle the distinction is (hopefully not to much repeat),
>>>
>>> Today in "legacy" mode each VF mac address is automatically added to
>>> the fdb along with the PF mac address. If there is a miss in the table
>>> (an unknown mac) the packet is sent to the PF but unless the PF is in
>>> promisc mode the packet is dropped by the rx filter. I presume even
>>> with the proposed model you would want to continue to enforce the
>>> rx filter otherwise the instance you flip the mode you are open to
>>> receive unwanted traffic. The promisc mode semantics have been in place
>>> for a long time so certainly don't want to break that. Can we agree on
>>> the promisc point? Also bridges/vswitch/etc already set promisc mode
>>> once they attach to the netdevs.
>>>
>>> (assuming we agree on the promisc point?)
>>> In your proposed model the only difference I can see is when the mode is
>>> changed you don't want to add the VF mac address to the fdb table. How
>>> about rather than make this part of the mode selection pick one way to
>>> do this in all cases. Either add the VF mac addresses to the fdb or
>>> do not do this. I have a preference for adding the VF mac addresses
>>> because this is the current behavior. Then rename the devlink option
>>> "VF reps" or something because that is what it is controlling.
>>>
>>> The last thing to argue about is if its a port attribute ala ethtool
>>> or a device attribute ala devlink. But maybe we can agree on everything
>>> up to this point?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> John
>>>
>> FWIW reviewing devlink and items I want to put there in the future I've
>> decided it makes sense to keep it in devlink (sorry took me a day of
>> emails to get here). If you can agree to the above and rename it
>> something like,
>>
>> +enum devlink_eswitch_mode {
>> +	DEVLINK_ESWITCH_MODE_NONE,
>> +	DEVLINK_ESWITCH_MODE_LEGACY,
>> +	DEVLINK_ESWITCH_MODE_CREATE_VF_NETDEVS,
> That is certainly totally misleading name. The mode is not about
> creating "VF netdevs".
>
> The VF representors are created but just as a side effect. The "offload"
> mode or maybe better "switchdev" mode is creating representor netdevs for
> VFs because they are needed in order to be able to configure ESwitch in
> the same way we configure physical switches - putting netdevs into
> bridge/bond/ovs/whatever. You see stats on the representors. Basicaly
> they are the same as physical port representors on physical switch ASIC.

May be we need 2 new modes
- legacy+ mode which only creates VF netdevs and let the user configure and manage the switch via the standard bridge/tc/ip/ethtool interfaces
- 'offload' or 'switchdev' mode that does more than just creating VF netdevs if it is not possible to configure the switch into this mode via standard interfaces.
  

>
>
>
>> +};
>>
>> I'll Ack it and implement it on the drivers I tend to work on.
>>
>> .John
>>
>>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists