[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200401131231.74f2a5a8@kicinski-fedora-PC1C0HJN>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 13:12:31 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Yuval Avnery <yuvalav@...lanox.com>,
"jgg@...pe.ca" <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
"leon@...nel.org" <leon@...nel.org>,
"andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com" <andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com>,
"michael.chan@...adcom.com" <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...lanox.com>,
Aya Levin <ayal@...lanox.com>,
Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>,
Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>,
Yevgeny Kliteynik <kliteyn@...lanox.com>,
"dchickles@...vell.com" <dchickles@...vell.com>,
"sburla@...vell.com" <sburla@...vell.com>,
"fmanlunas@...vell.com" <fmanlunas@...vell.com>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>,
"oss-drivers@...ronome.com" <oss-drivers@...ronome.com>,
"snelson@...sando.io" <snelson@...sando.io>,
"drivers@...sando.io" <drivers@...sando.io>,
"aelior@...vell.com" <aelior@...vell.com>,
"GR-everest-linux-l2@...vell.com" <GR-everest-linux-l2@...vell.com>,
"grygorii.strashko@...com" <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
mlxsw <mlxsw@...lanox.com>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
Mark Zhang <markz@...lanox.com>,
"jacob.e.keller@...el.com" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
Alex Vesker <valex@...lanox.com>,
"linyunsheng@...wei.com" <linyunsheng@...wei.com>,
"lihong.yang@...el.com" <lihong.yang@...el.com>,
"vikas.gupta@...adcom.com" <vikas.gupta@...adcom.com>,
"magnus.karlsson@...el.com" <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] current devlink extension plan for NICs
On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 07:32:46 +0000 Parav Pandit wrote:
> > From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 11:03 PM
> >
> > On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 07:45:51 +0000 Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > > In fact very little belongs to the port in that model. So why have
> > > > PCI ports in the first place?
> > > >
> > > for few reasons.
> > > 1. PCI ports are establishing the relationship between eswitch port
> > > and its representor netdevice.
> > > Relying on plain netdev name doesn't work in certain pci topology
> > > where netdev name exceeds 15 characters.
> > > 2. health reporters can be at port level.
> >
> > Why? The health reporters we have not AFAIK are for FW and for queues
> > hanging. Aren't queues on the slice and FW on the device?
> There are multiple heath reporters per object.
> There are per q health reporters on the representor queues (and
> representors are attached to devlink port). Can someone can have
> representor netdev for an eswitch port without devlink port? No,
> net/core/devlink.c cross verify this and do WARN_ON. So devlink port
> for eswitch are linked to representors and are needed. Their
> existence is not a replacement for representing 'portion of the
> device'.
I don't understand what you're trying to say. My question was why are
queues not on the "slice"? If PCIe resources are on the slice, then so
should be the health reporters.
> > > 3. In future at eswitch pci port, I will be adding dpipe support
> > > for the internal flow tables done by the driver.
> > > 4. There were inconsistency among vendor drivers in using/abusing
> > > phys_port_name of the eswitch ports. This is consolidated via
> > > devlink port in core. This provides consistent view among all
> > > vendor drivers.
> > >
> > > So PCI eswitch side ports are useful regardless of slice.
> > >
> > > >> Additionally devlink port object doesn't go through the same
> > > >> state machine as that what slice has to go through.
> > > >> So its weird that some devlink port has state machine and some
> > > >> doesn't.
> > > >
> > > > You mean for VFs? I think you can add the states to the API.
> > > >
> > > As we agreed above that eswitch side objects (devlink port and
> > > representor netdev) should not be used for 'portion of device',
> >
> > We haven't agreed, I just explained how we differ.
>
> You mentioned that " Right, in my mental model representor _is_ a
> port of the eswitch, so repr would not make sense to me."
>
> With that I infer that 'any object that is directly and _always_
> linked to eswitch and represents an eswitch port is out of question,
> this includes devlink port of eswitch and netdev representor. Hence,
> the comment 'we agree conceptually' to not involve devlink port of
> eswitch and representor netdev to represent 'portion of the device'.
I disagree, repr is one to one with eswitch port. Just because
repr is associated with a devlink port doesn't mean devlink port
must be associated with a repr or a netdev.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists