From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: Let's do P4 Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 16:23:25 +0100 Message-ID: <20161102152325.GK1713@nanopsycho.orion> References: <20161030163836.GC1686@nanopsycho.orion> <20161030223903.GA6658@ast-mbp.hil-sfehihf.abq.wayport.net> <20161031093922.GA2895@nanopsycho.orion> <58177712.4000208@gmail.com> <20161031171229.GB2895@nanopsycho.orion> <58179CE4.2080400@gmail.com> <20161101084643.GA1707@nanopsycho.orion> <5818B11C.2040004@gmail.com> <20161102080723.GD1713@nanopsycho.orion> <581A03AE.8050006@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Alexei Starovoitov , Thomas Graf , Jakub Kicinski , netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, jhs@mojatatu.com, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com, simon.horman@netronome.com, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, prem@barefootnetworks.com, hannes@stressinduktion.org, jbenc@redhat.com, tom@herbertland.com, mattyk@mellanox.com, idosch@mellanox.com, eladr@mellanox.com, yotamg@mellanox.com, nogahf@mellanox.com, ogerlitz@mellanox.com, linville@tuxdriver.com, andy@greyhouse.net, f.fainelli@gmail.com, dsa@cumulusnetworks.com, vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com, andrew@lunn.ch, ivecera@redhat.com, Maciej =?utf-8?Q?=C5=BBenczykowski?= To: John Fastabend Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:38726 "EHLO mail-wm0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754875AbcKBPX3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:23:29 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f49.google.com with SMTP id n67so44393694wme.1 for ; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 08:23:28 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <581A03AE.8050006@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 04:18:06PM CET, john.fastabend@gmail.com wrote: >On 16-11-02 01:07 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 04:13:32PM CET, john.fastabend@gmail.com wrote: [...] >[...]> >>> >>> Same question as above are we _really_ talking about pushing the entire >>> programmability of the device via 'tc'. If so we need to have a vendor >>> say they will support and implement this? >> >> We need some API, and I believe that TC is perfectly suitable for that. >> Why do you think it's a problem? >> > >For runtime configuration completely agree. For device configuration >I don't see the advantage of adding an entire device specific compiler >in the driver. The device is a set of CAMs, TCAMs, ALUs, instruction >caches, etc. its not like a typical NIC/switch where you just bang >some registers. Unless its all done in firmware but that creates an >entirely different set of problems like how to update your compiler. > >Bottom line we need to have a proof point of a driver in kernel >to see exactly how a P4 configuration would work. Again runtime config >and device topology/capabilities discovery I'm completely on board. I think we need to implement P4 world in rocker. Any volunteer? :)