On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 03:18:07PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 02:25:06PM CET, ido...@idosch.org wrote: > >On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 01:08:46PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >> Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 10:14:36PM CET, ido...@idosch.org wrote: > >> >On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 12:56:48PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote: > >> >> On 01/09/2017 12:48 PM, Ido Schimmel wrote: > >> >> > Hi Florian, > >> >> > > >> >> > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 11:44:59AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote: > >> >> >> Hi all, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> This patch series is to resolve a sleeping function called in atomic > >> >> >> context > >> >> >> debug splat that we observe with DSA. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Let me know what you think, I was also wondering if we should just > >> >> >> always > >> >> >> make switchdev_port_vlan_fill() set SWITCHDEV_F_DEFER, but was > >> >> >> afraid this > >> >> >> could cause invalid contexts to be used for rocker, mlxsw, i40e etc. > >> >> > > >> >> > Isn't this a bit of overkill? All the drivers you mention fill the > >> >> > VLAN > >> >> > dump from their cache and don't require sleeping. Even b53 that you > >> >> > mention in the last patch does that, but reads the PVID from the > >> >> > device, > >> >> > which entails taking a mutex. > >> >> > >> >> Correct. > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > Can't you just cache the PVID as well? I think this will solve your > >> >> > problem. Didn't look too much into the b53 code, so maybe I'm missing > >> >> > something. Seems that mv88e6xxx has a similar problem. > >> >> > >> >> I suppose we could indeed cache the PVID for b53, but for mv88e6xxx it > >> >> seems like we need to perform a bunch of VTU operations, and those > >> >> access HW registers, Andrew, Vivien, how do you want to solve that, do > >> >> we want to introduce a general VLAN cache somewhere in > >> >> switchdev/DSA/driver? > >> > > >> >Truth be told, I don't quite understand why switchdev infra even tries > >> >to dump the VLANs from the device. Like, in which situations is this > >> >going to be different from what the software bridge reports? Sure, you > >> >can set the VLAN filters with SELF and skip the software bridge, but how > >> >does that make sense in a model where you want to reflect the software > >> >datapath? > >> > >> But the vlans added by rtnl_bridge_setlink & SELF are not tracked by the > >> bridge and therefore driver needs to dump them. You would have to pass > >> some flag down to driver when adding SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_PORT_VLAN > >> indicating the need to track the vlan and dump it. Right? > > > >Right, but back to my question - what's the use case for the SELF flag > >in the switchdev model? Why would I configure a VLAN filter in the > >hardware but not in the software bridge? The whole point is reflecting > >the software bridge to the hardware. > > I agree. For the bridge-switchdev usecase, I don't see a reason to use > SELF for vlans as well. Do you suggest to simply remove this possibility?
Yes. This would also solve Florian's problem. Florian, what do you think?
