Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 05:08:52PM CET, ido...@idosch.org wrote: >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.
I agree, for switchdev usecase it makes no sense to implement this. I vote for removing that. > >Florian, what do you think?
