Re: [PATCH net-next 00/19] Mellanox, mlx5 sub function support

Jakub Kicinski
2019-11-09T17:28:15Z

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 20:44:26 -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 01:45:59PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > Yes, my suggestion to use mdev was entirely based on the premise that
> > the purpose of this work is to get vfio working.. otherwise I'm unclear
> > as to why we'd need a bus in the first place. If this is just for
> > containers - we have macvlan offload for years now, with no need for a
> > separate device.
>
> This SF thing is a full fledged VF function, it is not at all like
> macvlan. This is perhaps less important for the netdev part of the
> world, but the difference is very big for the RDMA side, and should
> enable VFIO too..

Well, macvlan used VMDq so it was pretty much a "legacy SR-IOV" VF.
I'd perhaps need to learn more about RDMA to appreciate the difference.

> > On the RDMA/Intel front, would you mind explaining what the main
> > motivation for the special buses is? I'm a little confurious.
>
> Well, the issue is driver binding. For years we have had these
> multi-function netdev drivers that have a single PCI device which must
> bind into multiple subsystems, ie mlx5 does netdev and RDMA, the cxgb
> drivers do netdev, RDMA, SCSI initiator, SCSI target, etc. [And I
> expect when NVMe over TCP rolls out we will have drivers like cxgb4
> binding to 6 subsytems in total!]

What I'm missing is why is it so bad to have a driver register to
multiple subsystems.

I've seen no end of hacks caused people trying to split their driver
too deeply by functionality. Separate sub-drivers, buses and modules.

The nfp driver was split up before I upstreamed it, I merged it into
one monolithic driver/module. Code is still split up cleanly internally,
the architecture doesn't change in any major way. Sure 5% of developers
were upset they can't do some partial reloads they were used to, but
they got used to the new ways, and 100% of users were happy about the
simplicity.

For the nfp I think the _real_ reason to have a bus was that it
was expected to have some out-of-tree modules bind to it. Something
I would not encourage :)

Maybe RDMA and storage have some requirements where the reload of the
part of the driver is important, IDK..

> > My understanding is MFD was created to help with cases where single
> > device has multiple pieces of common IP in it.
>
> MFD really seems to be good at splitting a device when the HW is
> orthogonal at the register level. Ie you might have regs 100-200 for
> ethernet and 200-300 for RDMA.
>
> But this is not how modern HW works, the functional division is more
> subtle and more software based. ie on most devices a netdev and rdma
> queue are nearly the same, just a few settings make them function
> differently.
>
> So what is needed isn't a split of register set like MFD specializes
> in, but a unique per-driver API between the 'core' and 'subsystem'
> parts of the multi-subsystem device.

Exactly, because the device is one. For my simplistic brain one device
means one driver, which can register to as many subsystems as it wants.

> > Do modern RDMA cards really share IP across generations?
>
> What is a generation? Mellanox has had a stable RDMA driver across
> many sillicon generations. Intel looks like their new driver will
> support at least the last two or more sillicon generations..
>
> RDMA drivers are monstrous complex things, there is a big incentive to
> not respin them every time a new chip comes out.

Ack, but then again none of the drivers gets rewritten from scratch,
right? It's not that some "sub-drivers" get reused and some not, no?

> > Is there a need to reload the drivers for the separate pieces (I
> > wonder if the devlink reload doesn't belong to the device model :().
>
> Yes, it is already done, but without driver model support the only way
> to reload the rdma driver is to unload the entire module as there is
> no 'unbind'

The reload is the only thing that I can think of (other than
out-of-tree code), but with devlink no I believe it can be solved
differently.

Thanks a lot for the explanation Jason, much appreciated!

The practicality of this is still a little elusive to me, but since
Greg seems on board I guess it's just me :)