[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4bd0a9d4-350d-274c-6370-e3a98a1e4f93@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 10:33:58 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: Yuval Mintz <yuvalm@...lanox.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Arkadi Sharshevsky <arkadis@...lanox.com>,
mlxsw <mlxsw@...lanox.com>, "andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>,
"vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com"
<vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
"f.fainelli@...il.com" <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"michael.chan@...adcom.com" <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
"ganeshgr@...lsio.com" <ganeshgr@...lsio.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
Matan Barak <matanb@...lanox.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
"jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com" <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
"ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>,
"daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"simon.horman@...ronome.com" <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
"pieter.jansenvanvuuren@...ronome.com"
<pieter.jansenvanvuuren@...ronome.com>,
"john.hurley@...ronome.com" <john.hurley@...ronome.com>,
"alexander.h.duyck@...el.com" <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
"linville@...driver.com" <linville@...driver.com>,
"gospo@...adcom.com" <gospo@...adcom.com>,
"steven.lin1@...adcom.com" <steven.lin1@...adcom.com>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
"roopa@...ulusnetworks.com" <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
Shrijeet Mukherjee <shm@...ulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 00/10] Add support for resource abstraction
On 12/28/17 10:23 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> So there are 4 tables exported to userspace:
>>
>> 1. mlxsw_erif table which is not in any of the kvd regions (no resource
>> path is given) and it has a size of 1000. Does mlxsw_erif mean a rif as
>> in Router Interfaces? So the switch supports up to 1000 router interfaces.
>>
>> 2. mlxsw_host4 in /kvd/hash_single with a size of 62. Based on the
> Size tells you the actual size. It cannot give you max size. The reason
> is simple. The resources are shared among multiple tables. That is
> exactly what this resource patch makes visible.
>
>
In the erif table, the 1000 is the max not current usage. I do not have
1000 interfaces:
$ ip -br li sh | wc -l
597
$ devlink dpipe table dump pci/0000:03:00.0 name mlxsw_erif
...
index 503
match_value:
type field_exact header mlxsw_meta field erif_port mapping ifindex
mapping_value 601 value 503
action_value:
type field_modify header mlxsw_meta field l3_forward value 1
The host4 table it is current size with no maximum.
The meaning of table size needs to be consistent across tables.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists