Date:   Wed, 11 Dec 2019 23:25:09 +0000
From:   Yuval Avnery <yuvalav@...lanox.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
CC:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next] netdevsim: Add max_vfs to bus_dev



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 2:24 PM
> To: Yuval Avnery <yuvalav@...lanox.com>
> Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>; davem@...emloft.net;
> netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] netdevsim: Add max_vfs to bus_dev
> 
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 19:57:34 +0000, Yuval Avnery wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 11:16 AM
> > > To: Yuval Avnery <yuvalav@...lanox.com>
> > > Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>; davem@...emloft.net;
> > > netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] netdevsim: Add max_vfs to bus_dev
> > >
> > > On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 18:19:56 +0000, Yuval Avnery wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 04:58:53 +0200, Yuval Avnery wrote:
> > > > > > Currently there is no limit to the number of VFs netdevsim can
> enable.
> > > > > > In a real systems this value exist and used by driver.
> > > > > > Fore example, Some features might need to consider this value
> > > > > > when allocating memory.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the patch!
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you shed a little bit more light on where it pops up? Just
> > > > > for my
> > > curiosity?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, like we described in the subdev threads.
> > > > User should be able to configure some attributes before the VF was
> > > enabled.
> > > > So all those (persistent) VF attributes should be available for
> > > > query and configuration before VF was enabled.
> > > > The driver can allocate an array according to max_vfs to hold all
> > > > that data, like we do here in" vfconfigs".
> > >
> > > I was after more practical reasoning, are you writing some tests for
> > > subdev stuff that will depend on this change? :)
> >
> > Yes we are writing tests for subdev with this.
> 
> Okay, please post v2 together with the tests. We don't accept netdevsim
> features without tests any more.

I think the only test I can currently write is the enable SR-IOV max_vfs enforcement.
Because subdev is not in yet.
Will that be good enough?

> 
> > This is the way mlx5 works.. is that practical enough?
> >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yuval Avnery <yuvalav@...lanox.com>
> > > > > > Acked-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/netdevsim/bus.c
> > > > > > b/drivers/net/netdevsim/bus.c index 6aeed0c600f8..f1a0171080cb
> > > > > > 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/net/netdevsim/bus.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/netdevsim/bus.c
> > > > > > @@ -26,9 +26,9 @@ static struct nsim_bus_dev
> > > > > > *to_nsim_bus_dev(struct device *dev)  static int
> > > > > > nsim_bus_dev_vfs_enable(struct nsim_bus_dev
> > > > > *nsim_bus_dev,
> > > > > >  				   unsigned int num_vfs)
> > > > > >  {
> > > > > > -	nsim_bus_dev->vfconfigs = kcalloc(num_vfs,
> > > > > > -					  sizeof(struct
> nsim_vf_config),
> > > > > > -					  GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > >
> > > > > You're changing the semantics of the enable/disable as well now.
> > > > > The old values used to be wiped when SR-IOV is disabled, now
> > > > > they will be retained across disable/enable pair.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it'd be better if that wasn't the case. Users may expect
> > > > > a system to be in the same state after they enable SR-IOV,
> > > > > regardless if someone else used SR-IOV since last reboot.
> > > >
> > > > Right,
> > > > But some values should retain across enable/disable, for example
> > > > MAC
> > > address which is persistent.
> > > > So maybe we need to retain some values, while resetting others on
> > > disable?
> > > > Would that work?
> > >
> > > Mmm. That is a good question. For all practical purposes SR-IOV used
> > > to be local to the host that enables it until Smart/middle box NICs
> emerged.
> > >
> > > Perhaps the best way forward would be to reset the config that was
> > > set via legacy APIs and keep only the MACs provisioned via persistent
> devlink API?
> > >
> > > So for now we'd memset, and once devlink API lands reset selectively?
> >
> > Legacy is also persistent.
> > Currently when you set mac address with "ip link vf set mac" it is persistent
> (at least in mlx5).
> 
> "Currently in mlx5" - maybe, but this is netdevsim. Currently it clears the
> config on re-enable which I believe to be preferable as explained before.
> 
> > But ip link only exposes enabled VFS, so driver on VF has to reload to
> acquire this MAC.
> > With devlink subdev it will be possible to set the MAC before VF was
> enabled.
> 
> Yup, sure. As I said, once subdev is implemented, we will treat the addresses
> set by it differently. Those are inherently persistent or rather their life time is
> independent of just the SR-IOV host.

Ok, got it.
I am just wondering how this works when you have "ip link" and devlink setting the MAC independently.
Will they show the same MAC?
Or ip link will show the non-persistent MAC And devlink the persistent?

> 
> > I think we need to distinguish here between:
> > - PF sets MAC to a VF - persistent.
> > - VF sets MAC to itself - not persistent.
> >
> > But is the second case relevant in netdevsim?
> 
> Not sure where you're going with this. Second case, i.e. if VF sets its MAC, is
> not exposed in the hypervisor. I think iproute2 should still list the MAC it
> provisioned, or 00:00.. if unset.

Yes, these are two different unrelated MACs.

> 
> The two cases I'm differentiating is reset behaviour for addresses set via PF
> vs via devlink.
> 
> > > > > Could you add a memset(,0,) here?
> > > > >
> > > > > > +	if (nsim_bus_dev->max_vfs < num_vfs)
> > > > > > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > >  	if (!nsim_bus_dev->vfconfigs)
> > > > > >  		return -ENOMEM;
> > > > >
> > > > > This check seems useless now, no? We will always have vfconfigs

Powered by blists - more mailing lists