Message-ID: <3b1e12b145a273dd3ded2864d976bdc5fa90e68a.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 03 Jun 2019 09:54:26 -0500
From:   Dan Williams <dcbw@...hat.com>
To:     Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
        evgreen@...omium.org, Ben Chan <benchan@...gle.com>,
        Eric Caruso <ejcaruso@...gle.com>, cpratapa@...eaurora.org,
        syadagir@...eaurora.org,
        Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan <subashab@...eaurora.org>,
        abhishek.esse@...il.com, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] net: introduce Qualcomm IPA driver

On Fri, 2019-05-31 at 15:47 -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> On 5/31/19 2:19 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 6:36 PM Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>
> > wrote:
> > > On 5/31/19 9:58 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2019-05-30 at 22:53 -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > My question from the Nov 2018 IPA rmnet driver still stands;
> > > > how does
> > > > this relate to net/ethernet/qualcomm/rmnet/ if at all? And if
> > > > this is
> > > > really just a netdev talking to the IPA itself and unrelated to
> > > > net/ethernet/qualcomm/rmnet, let's call it "ipa%d" and stop
> > > > cargo-
> > > > culting rmnet around just because it happens to be a net driver
> > > > for a
> > > > QC SoC.
> > > 
> > > First, the relationship between the IPA driver and the rmnet
> > > driver
> > > is that the IPA driver is assumed to sit between the rmnet driver
> > > and the hardware.
> > 
> > Does this mean that IPA can only be used to back rmnet, and rmnet
> > can only be used on top of IPA, or can or both of them be combined
> > with another driver to talk to instead?
> 
> No it does not mean that.
> 
> As I understand it, one reason for the rmnet layer was to abstract
> the back end, which would allow using a modem, or using something
> else (a LAN?), without exposing certain details of the hardware.
> (Perhaps to support multiplexing, etc. without duplicating that
> logic in two "back-end" drivers?)
> 
> To be perfectly honest, at first I thought having IPA use rmnet
> was a cargo cult thing like Dan suggested, because I didn't see

To be clear I only meant cargo-culting the naming, not any
functionality. Clearly IPA/rmnet/QMAP are pretty intimately connected
at this point. But this goes back to whether IPA needs a netdev itself
or whether you need an rmnet device created on top. If the former then
I'd say no cargo-culting, if the later then it's a moot point because
the device name will be rmnet%d anyway.

Dan

> the benefit.  I now see why one would use that pass-through layer
> to handle the QMAP features.
> 
> But back to your question.  The other thing is that I see no
> reason the IPA couldn't present a "normal" (non QMAP) interface
> for a modem.  It's something I'd really like to be able to do,
> but I can't do it without having the modem firmware change its
> configuration for these endpoints.  My access to the people who
> implement the modem firmware has been very limited (something
> I hope to improve), and unless and until I can get corresponding
> changes on the modem side to implement connections that don't
> use QMAP, I can't implement such a thing.
> 
> > > Currently the modem is assumed to use QMAP protocol.  This means
> > > each packet is prefixed by a (struct rmnet_map_header) structure
> > > that allows the IPA connection to be multiplexed for several
> > > logical
> > > connections.  The rmnet driver parses such messages and
> > > implements
> > > the multiplexed network interfaces.
> > > 
> > > QMAP protocol can also be used for aggregating many small packets
> > > into a larger message.  The rmnet driver implements de-
> > > aggregation
> > > of such messages (and could probably aggregate them for TX as
> > > well).
> > > 
> > > Finally, the IPA can support checksum offload, and the rmnet
> > > driver handles providing a prepended header (for TX) and
> > > interpreting the appended trailer (for RX) if these features
> > > are enabled.
> > > 
> > > So basically, the purpose of the rmnet driver is to handle QMAP
> > > protocol connections, and right now that's what the modem
> > > provides.
> > 
> > Do you have any idea why this particular design was picked?
> 
> I don't really.  I inherited it.  Early on, when I asked about
> the need for QMAP I was told it was important because it offered
> certain features, but at that time I was somewhat new to the code
> and didn't have the insight to judge the merits of the design.
> Since then I've mostly just accepted it and concentrated on
> improving the IPA driver.
> 
> > My best guess is that it evolved organically with multiple
> > generations of hardware and software, rather than being thought
> > out as a nice abstraction layer. If the two are tightly connected,
> > this might mean that what we actually want here is to reintegrate
> > the two components into a single driver with a much simpler
> > RX and TX path that handles the checksumming and aggregation
> > of data packets directly as it passes them from the network
> > stack into the hardware.
> 
> In general, I agree.  And Dan suggested combining the rmnet
> and IPA drivers into a single driver when I posted the RFC
> code last year.  There's still the notion of switching back
> ends that I mentioned earlier; if that's indeed an important
> feature it might argue for keeping rmnet as a shim layer.
> But I'm really not the person to comment on this.  Someone
> (Subash?) from Qualcomm might be able to provide better answers.
> 
> > Always passing data from one netdev to another both ways
> > sounds like it introduces both direct CPU overhead, and
> > problems with flow control when data gets buffered inbetween.
> 
> My impression is the rmnet driver is a pretty thin layer,
> so the CPU overhead is probably not that great (though
> deaggregating a message is expensive).  I agree with you
> on the flow control.
> 
> > The intermediate buffer here acts like a router that must
> > pass data along or randomly drop packets when the consumer
> > can't keep up with the producer.
> 
> I haven't reviewed the rmnet code in any detail, but you
> may be right.
> 
> 					-Alex
> 
> >         Arnd
> > 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists