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

Jiri Pirko
2019-03-21T17:34:32Z

Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 05:50:37PM CET, parav@mellanox.com wrote:
>
>
>> -----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?

Because sometimes it is there only once (PF), sometimes twice (VF) - and
one of these is kind-of zombie.

>
>
>> >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.