Date:   Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:23:57 +0200
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>
Cc:     "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org,
        "Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        "Duyck, Alexander H" <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
        achiad shochat <achiad.mellanox@...il.com>,
        Achiad Shochat <achiad@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] [RFC PATCH net-next v2 1/2] virtio_net: Introduce
 VIRTIO_NET_F_BACKUP feature bit

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 05:13:01PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 02:47:57 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:16:23PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 02:05:48 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:  
> > > > > As we are using virtio_net to control and manage the VF data path, it is not
> > > > > clear to me
> > > > > what is the advantage of creating a new device rather than extending
> > > > > virtio_net to manage
> > > > > the VF datapath via transparent bond mechanism.  
> > > > 
> > > > So that XDP redirect actions can differentiate between virtio, PT
> > > > device and the bond. Without it there's no way to redirect
> > > > to virtio specifically.  
> > > 
> > > Let's make a list :P
> > > 
> > > separate netdev:
> > > 1. virtio device being a bond master is confusing/unexpected.
> > > 2. virtio device being both a master and a slave is confusing.  
> > 
> > vlans are like this too, aren't they?
> 
> Perhaps a bad wording.  Both master and member would be better.
> 
> > > 3. configuration of a master may have different semantics than
> > >    configuration of a slave.
> > > 4. two para-virt devices may create a loop (or rather will be bound 
> > >    to each other indeterministically, depending on which spawns first).  
> > 
> > For 2 virtio devices, we can disable the bond to make it deterministic.
> 
> Do you mean the hypervisor can or is there a knob in virtio_net to mask
> off features?


Hypervisor can do it too. And it really should:
specifying 2 devices as backup and giving them same mac
seems like a misconfiguration.

But it's easy to do in virtio without knobs - check
that the potential slave is also a virtio device with the
backup flag, and don't make it a slave.


>  Would that require re-probe of the virtio device?

Probably not.

> > > 5. there is no user configuration AFAIR in existing patch, VM admin
> > >    won't be able to prevent the bond.  Separate netdev we can make 
> > >    removable even if it's spawned automatically.  
> > 
> > That's more or less a feature. If you want configurability, just use
> > any of the existing generic solutions (team,bond,bridge,...).
> 
> The use case in mind is that VM admin wants to troubleshoot a problem
> and temporarily disable the auto-bond without touching the hypervisor 
> (and either member preferably).

I don't think it's possible to support this unconditionally.

E.g. think of a config where these actually share
a backend, with virtio becoming active when PT
access to the backend is disabled.

So you will need some device specific extension for that.


> > > 6. XDP redirect use-case (or any explicit use of the virtio slave)
> > >    (from MST)
> > > 
> > > independent driver:
> > > 7. code reuse.  
> > 
> > With netvsc? That precludes a separate device though because of
> > compatibility.
> 
> Hopefully with one of the established bonding drivers (fingers
> crossed).

There is very little similarity. Calling this device a bond
just confuses people.

>  We may see proliferation of special bonds (see Achiad's
> presentation from last netdev about NIC-NUMA-node-bonds).

I'll take a look, but this isn't like a bond at all, no more than a vlan
is a bond.  E.g. if PT link goes down then link is down period and you
do not want to switch to virtio.

> > > separate device:  
> > 
> > I'm not sure I understand how "separate device" is different from
> > "separate netdev". Do you advocate for a special device who's job is
> > just to tell the guest "bind these two devices together"?
> > 
> > Yea, sure, that works. However for sure it's more work to
> > implement and manage at all levels. Further
> > 
> > - it doesn't answer the question
> > - a feature bit in a virtio device is cheap enough that
> >   I wouldn't worry too much about this feature
> >   going unused later.
> 
> Right, I think we are referring to different things as device.  I mean
> a bus device/struct device, but no strong preference on that one.  I'll
> be happy as long as there is a separate netdev, really :)
> 
> > > 8. bond any netdev with any netdev.
> > > 9. reuse well-known device driver model.
> > > a. natural anchor for hypervisor configuration (switchdev etc.)  
> > 
> > saparate netdev has the same property
> >
> > > b. next-gen silicon may be able to disguise as virtio device, and the
> > >    loop check in virtio driver will prevent the legitimate bond it such
> > >    case.  AFAIU that's one of the goals of next-gen virtio spec as well.  
> > 
> > In fact we have a virtio feature bit for the fallback.
> > So this part does not depend on how software in guest works
> > and does not need software solutions.
> 
> You mean in the new spec?  Nice.  Still I think people will try to
> implement the old one too given sufficiently capable HW.

Existing HW won't have the BACKUP feature so the new functionality
won't be activated. So no problem I think.

-- 
MST

Powered by blists - more mailing lists