From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
To: John Hurley <john.hurley@netronome.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
oss-drivers@netronome.com, Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@gmail.com>,
Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@gmail.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/8] nfp: offload LAG for tc flower egress
Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 22:29:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180530202954.GF2010@nanopsycho> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK+XE=n9EejO2Cx8VLnRTcRqD2Ci+t0c4VqO1c07FeyFgPFSFg@mail.gmail.com>
Wed, May 30, 2018 at 11:26:23AM CEST, john.hurley@netronome.com wrote:
>On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 11:09 PM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
>> Tue, May 29, 2018 at 04:08:48PM CEST, john.hurley@netronome.com wrote:
>>>On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 3:47 AM, Jakub Kicinski
>>><jakub.kicinski@netronome.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 08:48:09 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>>> Thu, May 24, 2018 at 04:22:47AM CEST, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com wrote:
>>>>> >Hi!
>>>>> >
>>>>> >This series from John adds bond offload to the nfp driver. Patch 5
>>>>> >exposes the hash type for NETDEV_LAG_TX_TYPE_HASH to make sure nfp
>>>>> >hashing matches that of the software LAG. This may be unnecessarily
>>>>> >conservative, let's see what LAG maintainers think :)
>>>>>
>>>>> So you need to restrict offload to only certain hash algo? In mlxsw, we
>>>>> just ignore the lag setting and do some hw default hashing. Would not be
>>>>> enough? Note that there's a good reason for it, as you see, in team, the
>>>>> hashing is done in a BPF function and could be totally arbitrary.
>>>>> Your patchset effectively disables team offload for nfp.
>>>>
>>>> My understanding is that the project requirements only called for L3/L4
>>>> hash algorithm offload, hence the temptation to err on the side of
>>>> caution and not offload all the bond configurations. John can provide
>>>> more details. Not being able to offload team is unfortunate indeed.
>>>
>>>Hi Jiri,
>>>Yes, as Jakub mentions, we restrict ourselves to L3/L4 hash algorithm
>>>as this is currently what is supported in fw.
>>
>> In mlxsw, a default l3/l4 is used always, no matter what the
>> bonding/team sets. It is not correct, but it works with team as well.
>> Perhaps we can have NETDEV_LAG_HASH_UNKNOWN to indicate to the driver to
>> do some default? That would make the "team" offload functional.
>>
>
>yes, I would agree with that.
>Thanks
Okay, would you please adjust your driver?
I will teka care of mlxsw bits.
Thanks!
>
>>>Hopefully this will change as fw features are expanded.
>>>I understand the issue this presents with offloading team.
>>>Perhaps resorting to a default hw hash for team is acceptable.
>>>John
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-30 20:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-24 2:22 [PATCH net-next 0/8] nfp: offload LAG for tc flower egress Jakub Kicinski
2018-05-24 2:22 ` [PATCH net-next 1/8] nfp: add ndo_set_mac_address for representors Jakub Kicinski
2018-05-24 2:22 ` [PATCH net-next 2/8] nfp: nfpcore: add rtsym writing function Jakub Kicinski
2018-05-24 2:22 ` [PATCH net-next 3/8] nfp: flower: check for/turn on LAG support in firmware Jakub Kicinski
2018-05-24 2:22 ` [PATCH net-next 4/8] nfp: flower: add per repr private data for LAG offload Jakub Kicinski
2018-05-24 2:22 ` [PATCH net-next 5/8] net: include hash policy in LAG changeupper info Jakub Kicinski
2018-05-24 2:22 ` [PATCH net-next 6/8] nfp: flower: monitor and offload LAG groups Jakub Kicinski
2018-05-24 2:22 ` [PATCH net-next 7/8] nfp: flower: implement host cmsg handler for LAG Jakub Kicinski
2018-05-24 2:22 ` [PATCH net-next 8/8] nfp: flower: compute link aggregation action Jakub Kicinski
2018-05-24 17:09 ` Or Gerlitz
2018-05-24 17:36 ` John Hurley
2018-05-24 17:04 ` [PATCH net-next 0/8] nfp: offload LAG for tc flower egress Or Gerlitz
2018-05-24 18:23 ` Samudrala, Sridhar
2018-05-24 18:53 ` Jakub Kicinski
2018-05-24 18:49 ` Jakub Kicinski
2018-05-24 19:26 ` Or Gerlitz
2018-05-24 22:01 ` Jakub Kicinski
2018-05-25 3:11 ` David Miller
2018-05-25 6:48 ` Jiri Pirko
2018-05-26 2:47 ` Jakub Kicinski
2018-05-29 14:08 ` John Hurley
2018-05-29 22:09 ` Jiri Pirko
2018-05-30 9:26 ` John Hurley
2018-05-30 20:29 ` Jiri Pirko [this message]
2018-05-31 10:20 ` John Hurley
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180530202954.GF2010@nanopsycho \
--to=jiri@resnulli.us \
--cc=andy@greyhouse.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=j.vosburgh@gmail.com \
--cc=jakub.kicinski@netronome.com \
--cc=john.hurley@netronome.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oss-drivers@netronome.com \
--cc=vfalico@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).