lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 00/14] Adding GAUDI NIC code to habanalabs driver
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 11:47:58AM +0300, Oded Gabbay wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 11:21 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 11:02:39AM +0300, Oded Gabbay wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 10:41 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:36:23AM +0300, Oded Gabbay wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 9:25 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 11:49:12PM +0300, Oded Gabbay wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 11:42 PM David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: Oded Gabbay <oded.gabbay@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 20:10:08 +0300
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is the second version of the patch-set to upstream the GAUDI NIC code
> > > > > > > > > into the habanalabs driver.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The only modification from v2 is in the ethtool patch (patch 12). Details
> > > > > > > > > are in that patch's commit message.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Link to v2 cover letter:
> > > > > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/9/12/201
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I agree with Jakub, this driver definitely can't go-in as it is currently
> > > > > > > > structured and designed.
> > > > > > > Why is that ?
> > > > > > > Can you please point to the things that bother you or not working correctly?
> > > > > > > I can't really fix the driver if I don't know what's wrong.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In addition, please read my reply to Jakub with the explanation of why
> > > > > > > we designed this driver as is.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And because of the RDMA'ness of it, the RDMA
> > > > > > > > folks have to be CC:'d and have a chance to review this.
> > > > > > > As I said to Jakub, the driver doesn't use the RDMA infrastructure in
> > > > > > > the kernel and we can't connect to it due to the lack of H/W support
> > > > > > > we have
> > > > > > > Therefore, I don't see why we need to CC linux-rdma.
> > > > > > > I understood why Greg asked me to CC you because we do connect to the
> > > > > > > netdev and standard eth infrastructure, but regarding the RDMA, it's
> > > > > > > not really the same.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ok, to do this "right" it needs to be split up into separate drivers,
> > > > > > hopefully using the "virtual bus" code that some day Intel will resubmit
> > > > > > again that will solve this issue.
> > > > > Hi Greg,
> > > > > Can I suggest an alternative for the short/medium term ?
> > > > >
> > > > > In an earlier email, Jakub said:
> > > > > "Is it not possible to move the files and still build them into a single
> > > > > module?"
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought maybe that's a good way to progress here ?
> > > >
> > > > Cross-directory builds of a single module are crazy. Yes, they work,
> > > > but really, that's a mess, and would never suggest doing that.
> > > >
> > > > > First, split the content to Ethernet and RDMA.
> > > > > Then move the Ethernet part to drivers/net but build it as part of
> > > > > habanalabs.ko.
> > > > > Regarding the RDMA code, upstream/review it in a different patch-set
> > > > > (maybe they will want me to put the files elsewhere).
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think ?
> > > >
> > > > I think you are asking for more work there than just splitting out into
> > > > separate modules :)
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > >
> > > > greg k-h
> > > Hi Greg,
> > >
> > > If cross-directory building is out of the question, what about
> > > splitting into separate modules ? And use cross-module notifiers/calls
> > > ? I did that with amdkfd and amdgpu/radeon a couple of years back. It
> > > worked (that's the best thing I can say about it).
> >
> > That's fine with me.
> >
> > > The main problem with this "virtual bus" thing is that I'm not
> > > familiar with it at all and from my experience I imagine it would take
> > > a considerable time and effort to upstream this infrastructure work.
> >
> > It shouldn't be taking that long, but for some unknown reason, the
> > original author of that code is sitting on it and not resending it. Go
> > poke them through internal Intel channels to find out what the problem
> > is, as I have no clue why a 200-300 line bus module is taking so long to
> > get "right" :(
> >
> > I'm _ALMOST_ at the point where I would just do that work myself, but
> > due to my current status with Intel, I'll let them do it as I have
> > enough other things on my plate...
> >
> > > This could delay the NIC code for a couple of years, which by then
> > > this won't be relevant at all.
> >
> > Why wouldn't this code be relevant in a year? It's going to be 2+ years
> > before any of this shows up in an "enterprise distro" based on their
> > release cycles anyway :)
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
>
> Hi Greg,
> ok, I'll take a look. Do you happen to have the name of the patch-set / author ?

Here's at least one copy:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rdma/20200520070227.3392100-2-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com/

there might have been a newer one, can't remember, sorry.

thanks,

greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-16 21:15    [W:0.096 / U:2.820 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site