Re: [RFC PATCH v3 net-next] Documentation: devlink: Add devlink-sd

[Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 09:41:31 -0800 Jacob Keller wrote:
> I don't know offhand if we have a device which can share pools
> specifically, but we do have multi-PF devices which have a lot of shared
> resources. However, due to the multi-PF PCIe design. I looked into ways
> to get a single devlink across the devices.. but ultimately got stymied
> and gave up.
> 
> This left us with accepting the limitation that each PF gets its own
> devlink and can't really communicate with other PFs.
> 
> The existing solution has just been to partition the shared resources
> evenly across PFs, typically via firmware. No flexibility.
> 
> I do think the best solution here would be to figure out a generic way
> to tie multiple functions into a single devlink representing the device.
> Then each function gets the set of devlink_port objects associated to
> it. I'm not entirely sure how that would work. We could hack something
> together with auxbus.. but thats pretty ugly. Some sort of orchestration
> in the PCI layer that could identify when a device wants to have some
> sort of "parent" driver which loads once and has ties to each of the
> function drivers would be ideal.
> 
> Then this parent driver could register devlink, and each function driver
> could connect to it and allocate ports and function-specific resources.
> 
> Alternatively a design which loads a single driver that maintains
> references to each function could work but that requires a significant
> change to the entire driver design and is unlikely to be done for
> existing drivers...

I think the complexity mostly stems from having to answer what the
"right behavior" is. At least that's what I concluded when thinking
about it back at Netronome :)  If you do a strict hierarchy where
one PF is preassigned the role of the leader, and just fail if anything
unexpected happens - it should be doable. We already kinda have the
model where devlink is the "first layer of probing" and "reload_up()"
is the second.

Have you had a chance to take a closer look at mlx5 "socket direct"
(rename pending) implementation?

BTW Jiri, weren't you expecting that to use component drivers or some
such?