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;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of garmin.com designates
 204.77.163.244 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=204.77.163.244; helo=edgetransport.garmin.com;
From:   "Huang, Joseph" <Joseph.Huang@garmin.com>
To:     Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@waldekranz.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@nvidia.com>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@nvidia.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        "bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org" 
        <bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/6] bridge: Fix snooping in multi-bridge config with
 switchdev
Thread-Topic: [PATCH net 0/6] bridge: Fix snooping in multi-bridge config with
 switchdev
Thread-Index: AQHXQRKRJez3iJGzm0eCT/EpouXvN6rUE08A//+0kwSAAHPJgP//uwHO
Date:   Tue, 4 May 2021 23:26:09 +0000
Message-ID: <82693dbedd524f94b5a6223f0287525c@garmin.com>
References: <20210504182259.5042-1-Joseph.Huang@garmin.com>
 <6fd5711c-8d53-d72b-995d-1caf77047ecf@nvidia.com>
 <685c25c2423c451480c0ad2cf78877be@garmin.com>,<87v97ym8tc.fsf@waldekranz.com>
In-Reply-To: <87v97ym8tc.fsf@waldekranz.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 May 2021 23:26:10.9125
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 8092d81b-cac4-4b73-aedf-08d90f54008c
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 38d0d425-ba52-4c0a-a03e-2a65c8e82e2d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=38d0d425-ba52-4c0a-a03e-2a65c8e82e2d;Ip=[204.77.163.244];Helo=[edgetransport.garmin.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: MW2NAM10FT047.eop-nam10.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR04MB6590
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 9q0Rh1avxEsB4hhIEK16WU05ftbYCiK1
X-Proofpoint-GUID: 9q0Rh1avxEsB4hhIEK16WU05ftbYCiK1
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391,18.0.761
 definitions=2021-05-04_15:2021-05-04,2021-05-04 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501
 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0
 clxscore=1011 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0
 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1
 engine=8.12.0-2104060000 definitions=main-2105040160
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

> If I may make a suggestion: I also work with mv88e6xxx systems, and we
> have the same issues with known multicast not being flooded to router
> ports. Knowing that chipset, I see what you are trying to do.
>=20
> But other chips may work differently. Imagine for example a switch where
> there is a separate vector of router ports that the hardware can OR in af=
ter
> looking up the group in the ATU. This implementation would render the
> performance gains possible on that device useless. As another example, yo=
u
> could imagine a device where an ATU operation exists that sets a bit in t=
he
> vector of every group in a particular database; instead of having to upda=
te
> each entry individually.
>=20
> I think we (mv88e6xxx) will have to accept that we need to add the proper
> scaffolding to manage this on the driver side. That way the bridge can st=
ay
> generic. The bridge could just provide some MDB iterator to save us from
> having to cache all the configured groups.
>=20
> So basically:
>=20
> - In mv88e6xxx, maintain a per-switch vector of router ports.
>=20
> - When a ports router state is toggled:
>   1. Update the vector.
>   2. Ask the bridge to iterate through all applicable groups and update
>      the corresponding ATU entries.
>=20
> - When a new MDB entry is updated, make sure to also OR in the current
>   vector of router ports in the DPV of the ATU entry.
>=20
>=20
> I would be happy to help out with testing of this!

Thanks for the suggestion/offer!

What patch 0002 does is that:

- When an mrouter port is added/deleted, it iterates over the list of mdb's
  to add/delete that port to/from the group in the hardware (I think this i=
s
  what your bullet #2 does as well, except that one is done in the bridge,
  and the other is done in the driver)

- When a group is added/deleted, it iterates over the list of mrouter ports
  to add/delete the switchdev programming

I think what Nik is objecting to is that with this approach, there's now
a for-loop in the call paths (thus it "increases the complexity with 1 orde=
r
of magnitude), however I can't think of a way to avoid the looping (whether
done inside the bridge or in the driver) but still achieve the same result
(for Marvell at least).

I suspect that other SOHO switches might have this problem as well (Broadco=
m
comes to mind).

Thanks,
Joseph=