Re: [patch net-next v2 00/10] Add support for resource abstraction

[Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>]

Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 05:33:58PM CET, dsa@cumulusnetworks.com wrote:
>On 12/28/17 10:23 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> So there are 4 tables exported to userspace:
>>>
>>> 1. mlxsw_erif table which is not in any of the kvd regions (no resource
>>> path is given) and it has a size of 1000. Does mlxsw_erif mean a rif as
>>> in Router Interfaces? So the switch supports up to 1000 router interfaces.
>>>
>>> 2. mlxsw_host4 in /kvd/hash_single with a size of 62. Based on the
>> Size tells you the actual size. It cannot give you max size. The reason
>> is simple. The resources are shared among multiple tables. That is
>> exactly what this resource patch makes visible.
>> 
>> 
>
>In the erif table, the 1000 is the max not current usage. I do not have

I believe that is a bug in erif dpipe implementation
(mlxsw_sp_dpipe_table_erif_size_get) We'll fix that. Thanks!



>1000 interfaces:
>
>$ ip -br li sh | wc -l
>597
>
>
>$ devlink dpipe table dump pci/0000:03:00.0 name mlxsw_erif
>...
>  index 503
>  match_value:
>    type field_exact header mlxsw_meta field erif_port mapping ifindex
>mapping_value 601 value 503
>  action_value:
>    type field_modify header mlxsw_meta field l3_forward value 1
>
>
>The host4 table it is current size with no maximum.
>
>The meaning of table size needs to be consistent across tables.