From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FB96B67E for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2024 22:01:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722636081; cv=none; b=rd1h8FX14Et7f1dDgIntY4kzN8N/PBeAqMIyAgZ61ZVg1GSxdJ+3peJ5e1z+ewymtxdXEUxSSLs8gvdXiBJz3mDAUaE76oPMSmy+Aqpv//ZYWPTedz3F2D4pPOU7myjabZmxtwWCLKMgTspDPqFRWdGBoVK4WlMwZduDdsuugvw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722636081; c=relaxed/simple; bh=G27UDolD1S5o2vZ/rMFzMAHo0IPbs/4ZJwyreb5h0Qc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=KKXnB6qqRwg5kKSqnXBiMGCSsgokeoIF8wG1CNURdPJm9BQdzGqc+fp6/7uTg+PBFjZUG5mTujGWIgQliL6GAXhSYSiLYopihypchmNmok8+B5FoSAFnkejc5tFlBF+SgcjWGWpv4fHJRpBLGkZtcgYXnITxzWz5fdmR1yTWK64= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=t9XhZ9tV; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="t9XhZ9tV" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 55A87C4AF09; Fri, 2 Aug 2024 22:01:20 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1722636080; bh=G27UDolD1S5o2vZ/rMFzMAHo0IPbs/4ZJwyreb5h0Qc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=t9XhZ9tVZmObRYX80SRmNra3Mz5y6DWgEpg0K4MOY2Wsi4dtWmlcJ+n3MBsr0XBrS Q62Pa3Nemp/HS21+pJtEqhdS49da2R2b9vmhU4ya5ZlI+C/BNeQ3u11iCVXQu65KHo /DWqGdr3uJbC8VzMgEvP2+HEKwL+qvJyRIrrjeXGokosUvL5f72UyRoVf1tZDszmzQ ydG0d7L3hiyF+aCMzF2bN20MmleKZ++b/MttUWcKglwRs/fngmAhgvPM0drkh/DSqz 8PRo8lrZaV++pMpi7xFhd7xcVVymUjodUW5e+tXGJgtSe5Z2OzMzq6AZdBCh8qqgr6 uHUpg/xby3NKQ== Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:01:19 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Jiri Pirko Cc: Paolo Abeni , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Madhu Chittim , Sridhar Samudrala , Simon Horman , John Fastabend , Sunil Kovvuri Goutham , Jamal Hadi Salim Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/12] net-shapers: implement NL set and delete operations Message-ID: <20240802150119.512821d6@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20240801080012.3bf4a71c@kernel.org> <144865d1-d1ea-48b7-b4d6-18c4d30603a8@redhat.com> <20240801083924.708c00be@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:15:32 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote: > Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 05:39:24PM CEST, kuba@kernel.org wrote: > >On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 17:25:50 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote: > >> When deleting a queue-level shaper, the orchestrator is "returning" the > >> ownership of the queue from the container to the host. If the container > > What do you meam by "orchestrator" and "container" here? I'm missing > these from the picture. Container (as in docker) and orchestrator. > >> wants to move the queue around e.g. from: > >> > >> q1 ----- \ > >> q2 - \SP1/ RR1 > > What "sp" and "rr" stand for. What are the "scopes" of these? "scopes" I agree are confusing, but: sp = strict priority rr = round robin > >> q3 - / \ > >> q4 - \ RR2 -> RR(root) > >> q5 - / / > >> q6 - \ RR3 > >> q7 - / > >> > >> to: > >> > >> q1 ----- \ > >> q2 ----- RR1 > >> q3 ---- / \ > >> q4 - \ RR2 -> RR(root) > >> q5 - / / > >> q6 - \ RR3 > >> q7 - / > >> > >> It can do it with a group() operation: > >> > >> group(inputs:[q2,q3],output:[RR1]) > > > >Isn't that a bit odd? The container was not supposed to know / care > >about RR1's existence. We achieve this with group() by implicitly > >inheriting the egress node if all grouped entities shared one. > > > >Delete IMO should act here like a "ungroup" operation, meaning that: > > 1) we're deleting SP1, not q1, q2 > > Does current code support removing SP1? I mean, if the scope is > detached, I don't think so. that's my reading too, fwiw > > 2) inputs go "downstream" instead getting ejected into global level > > > >Also, in the first example from the cover letter we "set" a shaper on > >the queue, it feels a little ambiguous whether "delete queue" is > >purely clearing such per-queue shaping, or also has implications > >for the hierarchy. > > > >Coincidentally, others may disagree, but I'd point to tests in patch > >8 for examples of how the thing works, instead the cover letter samples. > > Examples in cover letter are generally beneficial. Don't remove them :) They are beneficial, but if I was to order the following three forms of documentation by priority: - ReST under Documentation/ - clear selftests with comments - cover letter I'm uncertain which will be first, but cover letter is definitely last :( With the examples in the cover letter its unclear what the expected start and end state are. And where the values come from. I feel like selftest would make it clearer. But I don't feel strongly. Such newfangled ideas will take a while to take root :)