Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752176AbaLSJfN (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Dec 2014 04:35:13 -0500 Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172]:55292 "EHLO mail-wi0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751602AbaLSJfI (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Dec 2014 04:35:08 -0500 Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:35:05 +0100 From: Jiri Pirko To: B Viswanath Cc: Roopa Prabhu , "Samudrala, Sridhar" , John Fastabend , "Varlese, Marco" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , Thomas Graf , "sfeldma@gmail.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v2 1/1] net: Support for switch port configuration Message-ID: <20141219093505.GG1848@nanopsycho.orion> References: <54931969.7040209@cumulusnetworks.com> <5493293A.2000802@intel.com> <54935E28.8050602@cumulusnetworks.com> <549362A5.3000808@intel.com> <549367CC.2080307@cumulusnetworks.com> <20141219082754.GE1848@nanopsycho.orion>

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 10:22:24AM CET, marichika4@gmail.com wrote: >On 19 December 2014 at 14:31, B Viswanath wrote: >> On 19 December 2014 at 13:57, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>> Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 06:14:57AM CET, marichika4@gmail.com wrote: >>>>On 19 December 2014 at 05:18, Roopa Prabhu wrote: >>>>> On 12/18/14, 3:26 PM, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote: >> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We also need an interface to set per-switch attributes. Can this work? >>>>>> bridge link set dev sw0 sw_attr bcast_flooding 1 master >>>>>> where sw0 is a bridge representing the hardware switch. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Not today. We discussed this @ LPC, and one way to do this would be to have >>>>> a device >>>>> representing the switch asic. This is in the works. >>>> >>>> >>>>Can I assume that on platforms which house more than one asic (say >>>>two 24 port asics, interconnected via a 10G link or equivalent, to get >>>>a 48 port 'switch') , the 'rocker' driver (or similar) should expose >>>>them as a single set of ports, and not as two 'switch ports' ? >>> >>> Well that really depends on particular implementation and drivers. If you >>> have 2 pci-e devices, I think you should expose them as 2 entities. For >>> sure, you can have the driver to do the masking for you. I don't believe >>> that is correct though. >>> >> >> In a platform that houses two asic chips, IMO, the user is still >> expected to manage the router as a single entity. The configuration >> being applied on both asic devices need to be matching if not >> identical, and may not be conflicting. The FDB is to be synchronized >> so that (offloaded) switching can happen across the asics. Some of >> this stuff is asic specific anyway. Another example is that of the >> learning. The (hardware) learning can't be enabled on one asic, while >> being disabled on another one. The general use cases I have seen are >> all involving managing the 'router' as a single entity. That the >> 'router' is implemented with two asics instead of a single asic (with >> more ports) is to be treated as an implementation detail. This is the >> usual router management method that exists today. >> >> I hope I make sense. >> >> So I am trying to figure out what this single entity that will be used >> from a user perspective. It can be a bridge, but our bridges are more >> 802.1q bridges. We can use the 'self' mode, but then it means that it >> should reflect the entire port count, and not just an asic. >> >> So I was trying to deduce that in our switchdevice model, the best bet >> would be to leave the unification to the driver (i.e., to project the >> multiple physical asics as a single virtual switch device). This >> allows any 'switch' level configurations to the bridge in 'self' mode. >> >> And then we would need to consider stacking. Stacking differs from >> this multi-asic scenario since there would be multiple CPU involved. >> >> Thanks >> Vissu >> > >Another example i can provide is that of mirroring. Imagine user >wanted to mirror all traffic from port 1 of asic 1 to port 2 of asic >2. This can be offloaded to hardware. However, user would be able to >enter such a command only if he/she can look at a single management >entity. I understand your use case. I think this could be handled by higher entity. In this sase tome userspace agent which would be aware (by configuration) of all asics and how they are interconnected. Just a thought. Seem much nice than to do custom masking in drivers. > >Thanks >Vissu > >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in >>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- 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/