Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965559AbaLLJUE (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Dec 2014 04:20:04 -0500 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:42553 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933200AbaLLJT7 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Dec 2014 04:19:59 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,691,1406617200"; d="scan'208";a="497716746" From: "Varlese, Marco" To: Roopa Prabhu , Jiri Pirko CC: John Fastabend , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "stephen@networkplumber.org" , "Fastabend, John R" , "sfeldma@gmail.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/1] net: Support for switch port configuration Thread-Topic: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/1] net: Support for switch port configuration Thread-Index: AdAUhPtXGtfGamc6R3Ssf+89G79LDwAFGVwAAAB5JYAAIzgFYAAOW5dPAAB01YAAAZA/gAAgpxbA Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 09:19:55 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20141210165018.GG1863@nanopsycho.orion> <54887CF7.70708@gmail.com> <20141211110115.GA1979@nanopsycho.lan> <5489C85A.5020400@cumulusnetworks.com> <20141211165627.GF1912@nanopsycho.orion> <5489D739.9010303@cumulusnetworks.com> In-Reply-To: <5489D739.9010303@cumulusnetworks.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Roopa Prabhu [mailto:roopa@cumulusnetworks.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 5:41 PM > To: Jiri Pirko > Cc: Varlese, Marco; John Fastabend; netdev@vger.kernel.org; > stephen@networkplumber.org; Fastabend, John R; sfeldma@gmail.com; > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/1] net: Support for switch port > configuration > > On 12/11/14, 8:56 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: > > Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 05:37:46PM CET, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com wrote: > >> On 12/11/14, 3:01 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >>> Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:59:42AM CET, marco.varlese@intel.com wrote: > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: John Fastabend [mailto:john.fastabend@gmail.com] > >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 5:04 PM > >>>>> To: Jiri Pirko > >>>>> Cc: Varlese, Marco; netdev@vger.kernel.org; > >>>>> stephen@networkplumber.org; Fastabend, John R; > >>>>> roopa@cumulusnetworks.com; sfeldma@gmail.com; linux- > >>>>> kernel@vger.kernel.org > >>>>> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/1] net: Support for switch port > >>>>> configuration > >>>>> > >>>>> On 12/10/2014 08:50 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >>>>>> Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 05:23:40PM CET, marco.varlese@intel.com > wrote: > >>>>>>> From: Marco Varlese > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Switch hardware offers a list of attributes that are > >>>>>>> configurable on a per port basis. > >>>>>>> This patch provides a mechanism to configure switch ports by > >>>>>>> adding an NDO for setting specific values to specific attributes. > >>>>>>> There will be a separate patch that extends iproute2 to call the > >>>>>>> new NDO. > >>>>>> What are these attributes? Can you give some examples. I'm asking > >>>>>> because there is a plan to pass generic attributes to switch > >>>>>> ports replacing current specific ndo_switch_port_stp_update. In > >>>>>> this case, bridge is setting that attribute. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Is there need to set something directly from userspace or does it > >>>>>> make rather sense to use involved bridge/ovs/bond ? I think that > >>>>>> both will be needed. > >>>>> +1 > >>>>> > >>>>> I think for many attributes it would be best to have both. The in > >>>>> kernel callers and netlink userspace can use the same driver ndo_ops. > >>>>> > >>>>> But then we don't _require_ any specific bridge/ovs/etc module. > >>>>> And we may have some attributes that are not specific to any > >>>>> existing software module. I'm guessing Marco has some examples of > these. > >>>>> > >>>>> [...] > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> John Fastabend Intel Corporation > >>>> We do have a need to configure the attributes directly from user-space > and I have identified the tool to do that in iproute2. > >>>> > >>>> An example of attributes are: > >>>> * enabling/disabling of learning of source addresses on a given > >>>> port (you can imagine the attribute called LEARNING for example); > >>>> * internal loopback control (i.e. LOOPBACK) which will control how > >>>> the flow of traffic behaves from the switch fabric towards an > >>>> egress port; > >>>> * flooding for broadcast/multicast/unicast type of packets (i.e. > >>>> BFLOODING, MFLOODING, UFLOODING); > >>>> > >>>> Some attributes would be of the type enabled/disabled while other will > allow specific values to allow the user to configure different behaviours of > that feature on that particular port on that platform. > >>>> > >>>> One thing to mention - as John stated as well - there might be some > attributes that are not specific to any software module but rather have to do > with the actual hardware/platform to configure. > >>>> > >>>> I hope this clarifies some points. > >>> It does. Makes sense. We need to expose this attr set/get for both > >>> in-kernel and userspace use cases. > >>> > >>> Please adjust you patch for this. Also, as a second patch, it would > >>> be great if you can convert ndo_switch_port_stp_update to this new > ndo. > >> Why are we exposing generic switch attribute get/set from userspace > >> ?. We already have specific attributes for learning/flooding which > >> can be extended further. > > Yes, but that is for PF_BRIDGE and bridge specific attributes. There > > might be another generic attrs, no? > I cant think of any. And plus, the whole point of switchdev l2 offloads was to > map these to existing bridge attributes. And we already have a match for > some of the attributes that marco wants. > > If there is a need for such attributes, i don't see why it is needed for switch > devices only. > It is needed for any hw (nics etc). And, a precedence to this is to do it via > ethtool. > > Having said that, am sure we will find a need for this in the future. > And having a netlink attribute always helps. > > Today, it seems like these can be mapped to existing attributes that are > settable via ndo_bridge_setlink/getlink. > > > > >> And for in kernel api....i had a sample patch in my RFC series (Which > >> i was going to resubmit, until it was decided that we will use > >> existing api around > >> ndo_bridge_setlink/ndo_bridge_getlink): > >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg305473.html > > Yes, this might become handy for other generic non-bridge attrs. > > > >> Thanks, > >> Roopa > >> > >> > >> The list I provided is only a subset of the attributes we will need to be exposed. I do have more and I'm sure that more will come in the future. As I mentioned in few posts earlier, some attributes are generic and some are not. I did not consider ethtool for few reasons but the main one is that I was under the impression that netlink was preferred in many circumstances over the ethotool_ops. Plus, all the cases I have identified so far are going to nicely fit into the setlink set of operations. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/