From: Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@gmail.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox.com>,
Rabie Loulou <rabiel@mellanox.com>,
John Hurley <john.hurley@netronome.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>,
Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
ASAP_Direct_Dev@mellanox.com, mlxsw <mlxsw@mellanox.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 2/6] driver: net: bonding: allow registration of tc offload callbacks in bond
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 13:23:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJ3xEMijQHGeefiB5s1mHoAnfEqo8iF-H3oKwsY=CozC7OgtiQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180314095027.GC2130@nanopsycho>
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
> Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 04:51:02PM CET, gerlitz.or@gmail.com wrote:
>>On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
>>This sounds nice for the case where one install ingress tc rules on
>>the bond (lets
>>call them type 1, see next)
>>
>>One obstacle pointed by my colleague, Rabie, is that when the upper layer
>>issues stat call on the filter, they will get two replies, this can confuse them
>>and lead to wrong decisions (aging). I wonder if/how we can set a knob
>
> The bonding itself would not do anything on stats update
> command (TC_CLSFLOWER_STATS for example). Only the slaves would do
> update. So there will be only reply from slaves.
>
> Bond/team is just going to probagare block bind/unbind down. Nothing else.
Do we agree that user space will get the replies of all lower (slave) devices,
or I am missing something here?
>>2. bond being egress port of a rule
>>2.1 VF rep --> uplink 0
>>2.2 VF rep --> uplink 1
>>
>>and we do that in the driver (add/del two HW rules, combine the stat
>>results, etc)
>
> That is up to the driver. If the driver can share block between 2
> devices, he can do that. If he cannot share, it will just report stats
> for every device separatelly (2 block cbs registered) and tc will see
> them both together. No need to do anything in driver.
right
>>3. ingress rule on VF rep port with shared tunnel device being the
>>egress (encap)
>>and where the routing of the underlay (tunnel) goes through LAG.
> Same as "2."
ok
>>4. ingress rule shared tunnel device being the ingress and VF rep port
>>being the egress (decap)
> I don't follow :(
the way tunneling is handled in tc classifier/action is
encap: ingress: net port, action1: tunnel key set action2: mirred to
shared-tunnel device
decap: ingress: shared tunnel device, action1: tunnel key unset
action2: mirred to net port
type 4 are the decap rules, when we offload it to as HW ACL we stretch
the line and the ingress
in a HW port too (e.g uplink port in NICs)
>>this uses the egdev facility to be offloaded into the our driver, and
>>then in the driver
>>we will treat it like type 1, two rules need to be installed into HW,
>>but now, we can't delegate them
>>from the vxlan device b/c it has no direct connection with the bond.
> I see another thing we need to sanitize: vxlan rule ingress match action
> mirred redirect to lag
right, we don't have for NIC but for switch ASIC, I guess it is applicable
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-14 11:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-13 15:51 [RFC net-next 2/6] driver: net: bonding: allow registration of tc offload callbacks in bond Or Gerlitz
2018-03-13 15:53 ` Or Gerlitz
2018-03-14 1:50 ` Jakub Kicinski
2018-03-14 6:54 ` Or Gerlitz
2018-03-14 15:51 ` Jiri Pirko
2018-03-14 9:50 ` Jiri Pirko
2018-03-14 11:23 ` Or Gerlitz [this message]
2018-03-14 15:56 ` Jiri Pirko
2018-03-15 21:38 ` Or Gerlitz
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-03-05 13:28 [RFC net-next 0/6] offload linux bonding tc ingress rules John Hurley
2018-03-05 13:28 ` [RFC net-next 2/6] driver: net: bonding: allow registration of tc offload callbacks in bond John Hurley
2018-03-07 10:57 ` Jiri Pirko
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='CAJ3xEMijQHGeefiB5s1mHoAnfEqo8iF-H3oKwsY=CozC7OgtiQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=gerlitz.or@gmail.com \
--cc=ASAP_Direct_Dev@mellanox.com \
--cc=jakub.kicinski@netronome.com \
--cc=jiri@mellanox.com \
--cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
--cc=john.hurley@netronome.com \
--cc=mlxsw@mellanox.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rabiel@mellanox.com \
--cc=simon.horman@netronome.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).