Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 11 Dec 2014 09:41:13 -0800 | From | Roopa Prabhu <> | 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 <marco.varlese@intel.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >> >> >>
| |