Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 13 Apr 2021 00:04:57 +0200
From:   Marek Behun <marek.behun@nic.cz>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
Cc:     DENG Qingfang <dqfext@gmail.com>,
        Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Wei Wang <weiwan@google.com>,
        Cong Wang <cong.wang@bytedance.com>,
        Taehee Yoo <ap420073@gmail.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?= <bjorn@kernel.org>,
        zhang kai <zhangkaiheb@126.com>,
        Weilong Chen <chenweilong@huawei.com>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@cumulusnetworks.com>,
        Di Zhu <zhudi21@huawei.com>,
        Francis Laniel <laniel_francis@privacyrequired.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 0/3] Multi-CPU DSA support
Message-ID: <20210413000457.61050ea3@thinkpad>
In-Reply-To: <20210412163211.jrqtwwz2f7ftyli6@skbuf>
References: <20210410133454.4768-1-ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
        <20210411200135.35fb5985@thinkpad>
        <20210411185017.3xf7kxzzq2vefpwu@skbuf>
        <20210412150045.929508-1-dqfext@gmail.com>
        <20210412163211.jrqtwwz2f7ftyli6@skbuf>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 19:32:11 +0300
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 11:00:45PM +0800, DENG Qingfang wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 09:50:17PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:  
> > >
> > > So I'd be tempted to say 'tough luck' if all your ports are not up, and
> > > the ones that are are assigned statically to the same CPU port. It's a
> > > compromise between flexibility and simplicity, and I would go for
> > > simplicity here. That's the most you can achieve with static assignment,
> > > just put the CPU ports in a LAG if you want better dynamic load balancing
> > > (for details read on below).
> > >  
> >
> > Many switches such as mv88e6xxx only support MAC DA/SA load balancing,
> > which make it not ideal in router application (Router WAN <--> ISP BRAS
> > traffic will always have the same DA/SA and thus use only one port).  
> 
> Is this supposed to make a difference? Choose a better switch vendor!

:-) Are you saying that we shall abandon trying to make the DSA
subsystem work with better performace for our routers, in order to
punish ourselves for our bad decision to use Marvell switches?