Date:   Wed, 30 Oct 2019 02:30:12 +0000
From:   Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com>
CC:     Yuval Avnery <yuvalav@...lanox.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        "leon@...nel.org" <leon@...nel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Jurgens <danielj@...lanox.com>,
        Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 0/9] devlink vdev



> -----Original Message-----
> From: netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org <netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org> On
> Behalf Of Jakub Kicinski
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 12:08 PM
> To: Andy Gospodarek <andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com>
> Cc: Yuval Avnery <yuvalav@...lanox.com>; Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>;
> netdev@...r.kernel.org; Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>; Saeed Mahameed
> <saeedm@...lanox.com>; leon@...nel.org; davem@...emloft.net;
> shuah@...nel.org; Daniel Jurgens <danielj@...lanox.com>; Michael Chan
> <michael.chan@...adcom.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/9] devlink vdev
> 
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 10:58:08 -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> > Thanks, Jakub, I'm happy to chime in based on our deployment experience.
> > We definitely understand the desire to be able to configure properties
> > of devices on the SmartNIC (the kind with general purpose cores not
> > the kind with only flow offload) from the server side.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> > In addition to addressing NVMe devices, I'd also like to be be able to
> > create virtual or real serial ports as well as there is an interest in
> > *sometimes* being able to gain direct access to the SmartNIC console
> > not just a shell via ssh.  So my point is that there are multiple use-cases.
> 
> Shelling into a NIC is the ultimate API backdoor. IMO we should try to avoid
> that as much as possible.
> 
> > Arm are also _extremely_ interested in developing a method to enable
> > some form of SmartNIC discovery method and while lots of ideas have
> > been thrown around, discovery via devlink is a reasonable option.  So
> > while doing all this will be much more work than simply handling this
> > case where we set the peer or local MAC for a vdev, I think it will be
> > worth it to make this more usable for all^W more types of devices.  I
> > also agree that not everything on the other side of the wire should be
> > a port.
> >
> > So if we agree that addressing this device as a PCIe device then it
> > feels like we would be better served to query device capabilities and
> > depending on what capabilities exist we would be able to configure
> > properties for those.  In an ideal world, I could query a device using
> > devlink ('devlink info'?) and it would show me different devices that
> > are available for configuration on the SmartNIC and would also give me
> > a way to address them.  So while I like the idea of being able to
> > address and set parameters as shown in patch 05 of this series, I
> > would like to see a bit more flexibility to define what type of device
> > is available and how it might be configured.
> 
> We shall see how this develops. For now sounds pretty high level.
> If the NIC needs to expose many "devices" that are independently controlled
> we should probably look at re-using the standard device model and not
> reinvent the wheel.
> If we need to configure particular aspects and resource allocation, we can
> add dedicated APIs as needed.
> 
> What I definitely want to avoid is adding a catch-all API with unclear
> semantics which will become the SmartNIC dumping ground.
> 
What part is unclear in API? Can you be specific?
Subdev is not a dumping ground and so the devlink port is not a dumping ground either.
Having a more well defined object such as subdev with covers more than just port attribute (instead of devlink port) doesn't make it a dumping ground.

As I explained in previous email, subdev is intended to have attributes of the device (PF/VF/mdev).
Additionally as Andy described, resources will be linked to such subdev.

Keep in mind that this is anyway useful without smartnic usecase too immediately.

> > So if we took the devlink info command as an example (whether its the
> > proper place for this or not), it could look _like_ this:
> >
> > $ devlink dev info pci/0000:03:00.0
> > pci/0000:03:00.0:
> >   driver foo
> >   serial_number 8675309
> >   versions:
> > [...]
> >   capabilities:
> >       storage 0
> >       console 1
> >       mdev 1024
> >       [something else] [limit]
> >
> > (Additionally rather than putting this as part of 'info' the device
> > capabilities and limits could be part of the 'resource' section and
> > frankly may make more sense if this is part of that.)
> >
> > and then those capabilities would be something that could be set using
> > the 'vdev' or whatever-it-is-named interface:
> >
> > # devlink vdev show pci/0000:03:00.0
> > pci/0000:03:00.0/console/0: speed 115200 device /dev/ttySNIC0
> 
> The speed in this console example makes no sense to me.
> 
> The patches as they stand are about the peer side/other side of the port. So
> which side of the serial device is the speed set on? One can just read the
> speed from /dev/ttySNIC0. And link that serial device to the appropriate
> parent via sysfs. This is pure wheel reinvention.
> 
> > pci/0000:03:00.0/mdev/0: hw_addr 02:00:00:00:00:00 [...]
> > pci/0000:03:00.0/mdev/1023: hw_addr 02:00:00:00:03:ff
> >
> > # devlink vdev set pci/0000:03:00.0/mdev/0 hw_addr 00:22:33:44:55:00
> >
> > Since these Arm/RISC-V based SmartNICs are going to be used in a
> > variety of different ways and will have a variety of different
> > personalities (not just different SKUs that vendors will offer but
> > different ways in which these will be deployed), I think it's critical
> > that we consider more than just the mdev/representer case from the start.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists