RE: [PATCH net-next v2 4/7] devlink: allow subports on devlink PCI ports

Parav Pandit
2019-03-21T16:50:49Z

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 11:16 AM
> To: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>
> Cc: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>; Samudrala, Sridhar
> <sridhar.samudrala@intel.com>; davem@davemloft.net;
> netdev@vger.kernel.org; oss-drivers@netronome.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/7] devlink: allow subports on devlink PCI
> ports
>
> Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 04:03:58PM CET, parav@mellanox.com wrote:
> >Hi Jiri,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 4:08 AM
> >> To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
> >> Cc: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>; Samudrala, Sridhar
> >> <sridhar.samudrala@intel.com>; davem@davemloft.net;
> >> netdev@vger.kernel.org; oss-drivers@netronome.com
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/7] devlink: allow subports on
> >> devlink PCI ports
> >>
> >> Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 09:22:57PM CET, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:24:15 +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> >> >> Hi Jiri, Jakub, Samudrala Sridhar,
> >> >> > > > > > And physical port in include/uapi/linux/devlink.h also
> >> >> > > > > > describe that.
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > By "that" you must mean that the physical is a user facing port.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Can you please describe the difference between 'PF port' and
> >> >> > > > 'physical port of include/uapi/linux/devlink.h'? I must have
> >> >> > > > missed this crisp definition in discussion between you and
> >> >> > > > Jiri. I am in meantime checking the thread.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Perhaps start with the cover letter which includes an ASCII
> drawing?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Using Mellanox nomenclature - PF port is a "representor" for
> >> >> > > the PF which may be on another Host (SmartNIC or multihost).
> >> >> > > It's pretty much the same thing as a VF port/"representor".
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > Yes. We are aligned here. :-)
> >> >> > I see your point, where in multi-host scenario, a physical port
> >> >> > may be 1, but PF ports are 4, because of 4 PFs for 4 hosts.
> >> >> > (just an example of 4 hosts with their own mac address sharing 1
> >> >> > physical port).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > When there is no multihost and one to one mapping between a PF
> >> >> > and physical links, there is some overlap between PF port and
> >> >> > physical port attributes.
> >> >> > I believe, such overlap is fine as long as we have unique
> >> >> > indices for the
> >> ports.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So I am ok to have flavours as
> physical/cpu/dsa/pf/vf/mdev/switchport.
> >> >> > (last 4 as new port flavours).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Physical port is the hole on the panel of the adapter where
> >> >> > > cable
> >> goes.
> >> >>
> >> >> So my take away from above discussion are:
> >> >> 1. Following new port flavours should be added
> >> pci_pf/pci_vf/mdev/switchport.
> >> >> a. Switchport indicates port on the eswitch. Normally this port
> >> >> has rep-
> >> netdev attached to it.
> >> >
> >> >I don't understand the "switchport". Surely physical ports are also
> >> >attached to the eswitch? And one of the main purpose of adding the
> >> >pci_pf/pci_vf flavours was to generate phys_port_name for the port
> >> >netdevs.
> >> >
> >> >Please don't use the term representor if possible. Representor for
> >> >most developers describes the way the netdev is implemented in the
> >> >driver, so for Mellanox and Netronome different ports will be
> >> >representors and non-representors. That's why I prefer port netdev
> >> >(attached to eswitch, has switch_id) and host netdev (PF/VF netdev,
> >> >vNIC, VSI, etc).
> >> >
> >> >> b. host side port flavours are pci_pf/pci_vf/mdev which may be
> >> >> connected to switchport
> >> >
> >> >See above, pci_pf/pci_vf are needed for phys_port_name generation.
> >>
> >> Yep, that makes sense.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> 2. host side port flavours are not limited to Ethernet, as it is
> >> >> for devlink's
> >> port instance.
> >> >>
> >> >> 3. Each port is continue to be accessed using unique port index.
> >> >>
> >> >> 4. host side ports and switchport are control objects.
> >> >> a. switch side ports reside where current eswitch object of
> >> >> devlink instance reside b. for a given VF/PF/mdev such host side
> >> >> ports may be in hypervisor or VM or both depending on the
> >> >> privilege
> >> >>
> >> >> 5. eth.mac_address, rdma.port_guid can be programmed at host port
> >> >> flavours by extending as $ devlink port param set...
> >> >> (similar to devlink dev param set)
> >> >
> >> >You can keep restating that's your position, but I have *not*
> >> >conceded to that.
> >>
> >> I'm also not convinced that host dummy ports are good idea to hold
> these.
> >>
> >>
> >I didn't understand what do you mean my dummy port.
>
> It's a port for a VF host port which is not actually in the host but in the vm.
> Very confusing.
>
It is the vf_ctrl flavour. I don't see it any different than rep-netdev.
rep-netdev is not that confusing to us that represent eswitch vport.
Why vf_ctrl flavour port that represents otherside of the pipe as you have shown in example?
Why it that confusing?

> >Can you explain what is wrong in programming host port params using
> host_port object?
> >Few questions are unanswered in my past 2 or 3 emails.
> >Can you please go through them?
> >Can you point to some example switch API where you program host params
> at switch?
> >
> >> >
> >> >> 6. more host port params can be added in future when user need
> >> >> arise
> >> >>
> >> >> 7. rep-netdev continue to be eswitch (switchport) representor at
> >> >> the
> >> switch side.
> >> >> a. Hence rep-netdev cannot be used for programming host port's
> >> parameters.
> >> >>
> >> >> 8. eswitch devlink instance knows when VF/PF/mdev's switchport are
> >> created/removed.
> >> >> Hence, those will be created/deleted by eswitch.
> >> >> Similarly for host port flavours too.
> >> >>
> >> >> Does it look fine? Did I miss something?
> >> >> We would like to progress on incremental patches for item-4 and
> >> >> any prep work needed to reach to item-4.