From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leon Romanovsky Subject: Re: [PATCH mlx5-next 11/15] RDMA/mlx5: Add vport metadata matching for IB representors Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 08:12:29 +0000 Message-ID: <20190619081226.GI11611@mtr-leonro.mtl.com> References: <20190617192247.25107-1-saeedm@mellanox.com> <20190617192247.25107-12-saeedm@mellanox.com> <20190618101928.GE4690@mtr-leonro.mtl.com> <20190619044420.GA30694@mellanox.com> <20190619050412.GC11611@mtr-leonro.mtl.com> <20190619063941.GA5176@mellanox.com> <20190619065125.GF11611@mtr-leonro.mtl.com> <4e01d326-db6c-f746-acd6-06f65f311f5b@mellanox.com> <20190619074338.GG11611@mtr-leonro.mtl.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Content-ID: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Bloch Cc: Jianbo Liu , Saeed Mahameed , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" , Roi Dayan List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 07:58:51AM +0000, Mark Bloch wrote: > > > On 6/19/2019 00:43, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 07:26:54AM +0000, Mark Bloch wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 6/18/2019 23:51, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 06:40:16AM +0000, Jianbo Liu wrote: > >>>> The 06/19/2019 13:04, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > >>>>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 04:44:26AM +0000, Jianbo Liu wrote: > >>>>>> The 06/18/2019 18:19, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 07:23:30PM +0000, Saeed Mahameed wrote: > >>>>>>>> From: Jianbo Liu > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If vport metadata matching is enabled in eswitch, the rule creat= ed > >>>>>>>> must be changed to match on the metadata, instead of source port= . > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jianbo Liu > >>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Roi Dayan > >>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Mark Bloch > >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed > >>>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>>> drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/ib_rep.c | 11 +++++++ > >>>>>>>> drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/ib_rep.h | 16 ++++++++++ > >>>>>>>> drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++= +------ > >>>>>>>> 3 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/ib_rep.c b/drivers/infin= iband/hw/mlx5/ib_rep.c > >>>>>>>> index 22e651cb5534..d4ed611de35d 100644 > >>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/ib_rep.c > >>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/ib_rep.c > >>>>>>>> @@ -131,6 +131,17 @@ struct mlx5_eswitch_rep *mlx5_ib_vport_rep(= struct mlx5_eswitch *esw, int vport) > >>>>>>>> return mlx5_eswitch_vport_rep(esw, vport); > >>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> +u32 mlx5_ib_eswitch_vport_match_metadata_enabled(struct mlx5_es= witch *esw) > >>>>>>>> +{ > >>>>>>>> + return mlx5_eswitch_vport_match_metadata_enabled(esw); > >>>>>>>> +} > >>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>> +u32 mlx5_ib_eswitch_get_vport_metadata_for_match(struct mlx5_es= witch *esw, > >>>>>>>> + u16 vport) > >>>>>>>> +{ > >>>>>>>> + return mlx5_eswitch_get_vport_metadata_for_match(esw, vport); > >>>>>>>> +} > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 1. There is no need to introduce one line functions, call to that= code directly. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No. They are in IB, and we don't want them be mixed up by the orig= inal > >>>>>> functions in eswitch. Please ask Mark more about it. > >>>>> > >>>>> Please enlighten me. > >>>> > >>>> It was suggested by Mark in prevouis review. > >>>> I think it's because there are in different modules, and better to w= ith > >>>> different names, so introduce there extra one line functions. > >>>> Please correct me if I'm wrong, Mark... > >>> > >>> mlx5_ib is full of direct function calls to mlx5_core and it is done = on > >>> purpose for at least two reasons. First is to control in one place > >>> all compilation options and expose proper API interface with and with= out > >>> specific kernel config is on. Second is to emphasize that this is cor= e > >>> function and save us time in refactoring and reviewing. > >> > >> This was done in order to avoid #ifdef CONFIG_MLX5_ESWITCH, > >> I want to hide (as much as possible) the interactions with the eswitch= level in ib_rep.c/ib_rep.h > >> so ib_rep.h will provide the stubs needed in case CONFIG_MLX5_ESWITCH = isn't defined. > >> (Today include/linux/mlx5/eswitch.h) doesn't provide any stubs, mlx5_e= switch_get_encap_mode() > >> should have probably done the same. > > > > This is exactly the problem, eswitch.h should provide stubs for all > > exported functions, so other clients of eswitch won't need to deal with > > various unrelated config options. > > The way it works today, code in drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c doesn't= call eswitch layer directly > but the functions in ib_rep.{c,h} as most often there is additional logic= we must do before calling > the eswitch layer. > > If you look at drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/Makefile you will see ib_rep is= complied only when > CONFIG_MLX5_ESWITCH id defined. This simple patch + cleanup of ib_rep.h will do the trick. diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5= /main.c index 67b9e7ac569a..b917ba28659e 100644 --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c @@ -59,7 +59,9 @@ #include #include #include "mlx5_ib.h" +#if defined(CONFIG_MLX5_ESWITCH) #include "ib_rep.h" +#endif #include "cmd.h" #include "srq.h" #include @@ -6765,6 +6767,7 @@ static const struct mlx5_ib_profile pf_profile =3D { mlx5_ib_stage_delay_drop_cleanup), }; +#if defined(CONFIG_MLX5_ESWITCH) const struct mlx5_ib_profile uplink_rep_profile =3D { STAGE_CREATE(MLX5_IB_STAGE_INIT, mlx5_ib_stage_init_init, @@ -6812,6 +6815,7 @@ const struct mlx5_ib_profile uplink_rep_profile =3D { mlx5_ib_stage_post_ib_reg_umr_init, NULL), }; > > so instead of having to deal with two places that contain stubs, we need = to deal with only one (ib_rep.h). > For me it makes it easier to follow, but I can adept if you don't like it= . > > Mark > > > > >> > >> As my long term goal is to break drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c (th= at file is already 7000 LOC) > >> I want to group together stuff in separate files. > > > > Yes, it is right thing to do. > > > >> > >> If you prefer direct calls that's okay as well. > > > > Yes, please. > > > >> > >> Mark > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2. It should be bool and not u32. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> --