Re: [net-next PATCH 00/15] eth: fbnic: Add network driver for Meta Platforms Host Network Interface

[Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>]

Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 01:45:54PM CEST, aleksander.lobakin@intel.com wrote:
>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
>Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 16:41:10 +0200
>
>> Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 03:11:21PM CEST, aleksander.lobakin@intel.com wrote:
>>> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
>>> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 13:01:51 +0200
>>>
>>>> Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 07:32:59PM CEST, john.fastabend@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>>>> Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 05:46:35PM CEST, alexander.duyck@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 4:51 AM Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 08:38:25PM CEST, alexander.duyck@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 8:17 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 07:24:32AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex already indicated new features are coming, changes to the core
>>>>>>>>>>>> code will be proposed. How should those be evaluated? Hypothetically
>>>>>>>>>>>> should fbnic be allowed to be the first implementation of something
>>>>>>>>>>>> invasive like Mina's DMABUF work? Google published an open userspace
>>>>>>>>>>>> for NCCL that people can (in theory at least) actually run. Meta would
>>>>>>>>>>>> not be able to do that. I would say that clearly crosses the line and
>>>>>>>>>>>> should not be accepted.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Just because we are not commercially selling it doesn't mean
>>>>>>>>>>> we couldn't look at other solutions such as QEMU. If we were to
>>>>>>>>>>> provide a github repo with an emulation of the NIC would that be
>>>>>>>>>>> enough to satisfy the "commercial" requirement?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My test is not "commercial", it is enabling open source ecosystem vs
>>>>>>>>>> benefiting only proprietary software.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry, that was where this started where Jiri was stating that we had
>>>>>>>>> to be selling this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For the record, I never wrote that. Not sure why you repeat this over
>>>>>>>> this thread.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because you seem to be implying that the Meta NIC driver shouldn't be
>>>>>>> included simply since it isn't going to be available outside of Meta.
>>>
>>> BTW idpf is also not something you can go and buy in a store, but it's
>>> here in the kernel. Anyway, see below.
>> 
>> IDK, why so many people in this thread are so focused on "buying" nic.
>> IDPF device is something I assume one may see on a VM hosted in some
>> cloud, isn't it? If yes, it is completely legit to have it in. Do I miss
>> something?
>
>Anyhow, we want the upstream Linux kernel to work out of box on most
>systems. Rejecting this driver basically encourages to still prefer
>OOT/proprietary crap.

Totally true. Out of the box on as many systems as possible. This is not
the case. Can you show me an example of a person outside-of-Meta can
benefit from using this driver out-of-box?


>
>> 
>> 
>>>
>>>>>>> The fact is Meta employs a number of kernel developers and as a result
>>>>>>> of that there will be a number of kernel developers that will have
>>>>>>> access to this NIC and likely do development on systems containing it.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> Vendors would happily spin up a NIC if a DC with scale like this
>>>>> would pay for it. They just don't advertise it in patch 0/X,
>>>>> "adding device for cloud provider foo".
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no difference here. We gain developers, we gain insights,
>>>>> learnings and Linux and OSS drivers are running on another big
>>>>> DC. They improve things and find bugs they upstream them its a win.
>>>>>
>>>>> The opposite is also true if we exclude a driver/NIC HW that is
>>>>> running on major DCs we lose a lot of insight, experience, value.
>>>>
>>>> Could you please describe in details and examples what exactly is we
>>>> are about to loose? I don't see it.
>>>
>>> As long as driver A introduces new features / improvements / API /
>>> whatever to the core kernel, we benefit from this no matter whether I'm
>>> actually able to run this driver on my system.
>>>
>>> Some drivers even give us benefit by that they are of good quality (I
>>> don't speak for this driver, just some hypothetical) and/or have
>>> interesting design / code / API / etc. choices. The drivers I work on
>>> did gain a lot just from that I was reading new commits / lore threads
>>> and look at changes in other drivers.
>>>
>>> I saw enough situations when driver A started using/doing something the
>>> way it wasn't ever done anywhere before, and then more and more drivers
>>> stated doing the same thing and at the end it became sorta standard.
>> 
>> So bottom line is, the unused driver *may* introduce some features and
>> *may* provide as an example of how to do things for other people.
>> Is this really that beneficial for the community that it overweights
>> the obvious cons (not going to repeat them)?
>> 
>> Like with any other patch/set we merge in, we always look at the cons
>> and pros. I'm honestly surprised that so many people here
>> want to make exception for Meta's internal toy project.
>
>It's not me who wants to make an exception. I haven't ever seen a driver
>rejected due to "it can be used only somewhere where I can't go", so
>looks like it's you who wants to make an exception :>

Could you please point me to some other existing driver for device
that does not exist (/exist only at some person's backyard)?


>
>Thanks,
>Olek