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

Jiri Pirko
2019-03-21T16:27:06Z

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.

>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.