Date:   Tue, 11 Oct 2022 15:28:38 +0200
From:   "Wilczynski, Michal" <michal.wilczynski@...el.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
CC:     Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>, <dchumak@...dia.com>,
        <maximmi@...dia.com>, <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
        <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>, <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v4 2/6] devlink: Extend devlink-rate api with
 queues and new parameters



On 9/29/2022 9:12 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 01:47:03PM CEST, michal.wilczynski@...el.com wrote:
>>
>> On 9/26/2022 1:51 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 08:41:52PM CEST, michal.wilczynski@...el.com wrote:
>>>> On 9/15/2022 5:31 PM, Edward Cree wrote:
>>>>> On 15/09/2022 14:42, Michal Wilczynski wrote:
>>>>>> Currently devlink-rate only have two types of objects: nodes and leafs.
>>>>>> There is a need to extend this interface to account for a third type of
>>>>>> scheduling elements - queues. In our use case customer is sending
>>>>>> different types of traffic on each queue, which requires an ability to
>>>>>> assign rate parameters to individual queues.
>>>>> Is there a use-case for this queue scheduling in the absence of a netdevice?
>>>>> If not, then I don't see how this belongs in devlink; the configuration
>>>>>     should instead be done in two parts: devlink-rate to schedule between
>>>>>     different netdevices (e.g. VFs) and tc qdiscs (or some other netdev-level
>>>>>     API) to schedule different queues within each single netdevice.
>>>>> Please explain why this existing separation does not support your use-case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also I would like to see some documentation as part of this patch.  It looks
>>>>>     like there's no kernel document for devlink-rate unlike most other devlink
>>>>>     objects; perhaps you could add one?
>>>>>
>>>>> -ed
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Previously we discussed adding queues to devlink-rate in this thread:
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20220704114513.2958937-1-michal.wilczynski@intel.com/T/#u
>>>> In our use case we are trying to find a way to expose hardware Tx scheduler
>>>> tree that is defined
>>>> per port to user. Obviously if the tree is defined per physical port, all the
>>>> scheduling nodes will reside
>>>> on the same tree.
>>>>
>>>> Our customer is trying to send different types of traffic that require
>>>> different QoS levels on the same
>>> Do I understand that correctly, that you are assigning traffic to queues
>>> in VM, and you rate the queues on hypervisor? Is that the goal?
>> Yes.
> Why do you have this mismatch? If forces the hypervisor and VM admin to
> somehow sync upon the configuration. That does not sound correct to me.

Thanks for a feedback, this is going to be changed

>
>
>>>
>>>> VM, but on a different queues. This requires completely different rate setups
>>>> for that queue - in the
>>>> implementation that you're mentioning we wouldn't be able to arbitrarily
>>>> reassign the queue to any node.
>>>> Those queues would still need to share a single parent - their netdev. This
>>> So that replies to Edward's note about having the queues maintained
>>> within the single netdev/vport, correct?
>>   Correct ;)
> Okay. So you don't really need any kind of sharing devlink might be able
> to provide.
>
>  From what you say and how I see this, it's clear. You should handle the
> per-queue shaping on the VM, on netdevice level, most probably by
> offloading some of the TC qdisc.

I talked with architect, and this is how the solution will end up 
looking like,
I'm not sure however whether creating a hardware-only qdisc is allowed ?



Btw, thanks everyone for valuable feedback, I've resend the patch
without the queue support,
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20221011090113.445485-1-michal.wilczynski@intel.com/


BR,
Michał
>
>>>
>>>> wouldn't allow us to fully take
>>>> advantage of the HQoS and would introduce arbitrary limitations.
>>>>
>>>> Also I would think that since there is only one vendor implementing this
>>>> particular devlink-rate API, there is
>>>> some room for flexibility.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding the documentation,  sure. I just wanted to get all the feedback
>>> >from the mailing list and arrive at the final
>>>> solution before writing the docs.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, I'm going to be out of office tomorrow, so will respond in this thread
>>>> on Monday.
>>>> BR,
>>>> Michał
>>>>
>>>>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists