Re: [PATCH net v2] switchdev: don't abort hardware ipv4 fib offload on failure to program fib entry in hardware

Jiri Pirko
2015-05-29T07:51:02Z

Thu, May 28, 2015 at 05:40:11PM CEST, sfeldma@gmail.com wrote:
>On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:42 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
>> Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:19:16PM CEST, davem@davemloft.net wrote:
>>>From: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@cumulusnetworks.com>
>>>Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 16:42:05 -0700
>>>
>>>> On most systems where you can offload routes to hardware,
>>>> doing routing in software is not an option (the cpu limitations
>>>> make routing impossible in software).
>>>
>>>You absolutely do not get to determine this policy, none of us
>>>do.
>>>
>>>What matters is that by default the damn switch device being there
>>>is %100 transparent to the user.
>>>
>>>And the way to achieve that default is to do software routes as
>>>a fallback.
>>>
>>>I am not going to entertain changes of this nature which fail
>>>route loading by default just because we've exceeded a device's
>>>HW capacity to offload.
>>>
>>>I thought I was _really_ clear about this at netdev 0.1
>>
>> I certainly agree that by default, transparency 1:1 sw:hw mapping is
>> what we need for fib. The current code is a good start!
>>
>> I see couple of issues regarding switchdev_fib_ipv4_abort:
>> 1) If user adds and entry, switchdev_fib_ipv4_add fails, abort is
>> executed -> and, error returned. I would expect that route entry should
>> be added in this case. The next attempt of adding the same entry will
>> be successful.
>> The current behaviour breaks the transparency you are reffering to.
>> 2) When switchdev_fib_ipv4_abort happens to be executed, the offload is
>> disabled for good (until reboot). That is certainly not nice, alhough
>> I understand that is the easiest solution for now.
>>
>> I believe that we all agree that the 1:1 transparency, although it is a
>> default, may not be optimal for real-life usage. HW resources are
>> limited and user does not know them. The danger of hitting _abort and
>> screwing-up the whole system is huge, unacceptable.
>>
>> So here, there are couple of more or less simple things that I suggest to
>> do in order to move a little bit forward:
>> 1) Introduce system-wide option to switch _abort to just plain fail.
>> When HW does not have capacity, do not flush and fallback to sw, but
>> rather just fail to add the entry. This would not break anything.
>> Userspace has to be prepared that entry add could fail.
>> 2) Introduce a way to propagate resources to userspace. Driver knows about
>> resources used/available/potentially_available. Switchdev infra could
>> be extended in order to propagate the info to the user.
>> 3) Introduce couple of flags for entry add that would alter the default
>> behaviour. Something like:
>> NLM_F_SKIP_KERNEL
>> NLM_F_SKIP_OFFLOAD
>> Again, this does not break the current users. On the other hand, this
>> gives new users a leverage to instruct kernel where the entry should
>> be added to (or not added to).
>>
>> Any thoughts? Objections?
>
>I don't like these. Breaks transparency and forces the user in a
>position of having to know hardware failures modes (unique to each

Can you please elaborate on this a bit more? I fail to see transparency
breaking in my proposal :/ Maybe it is by different understanding of the
term?

Also I do not understand the remark about user having to know hardware
failure modes. Could you please explain?

>hardware device). I presented an option d) which avoids this issues;
>was it not understood?

I just commented on option d) it other email.