Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 10:53:23AM CEST, pa...@nvidia.com wrote:
>
>> From: Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us>
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 1:49 PM
>>
>> >> > How? How do we tell that pfnum A means external system.
>> >> > Want to avoid such 'implicit' notion.
>> >>
>> >> How do you tell that controller A means external system?
>>
>> Perhaps the attr name could be explicitly containing "external" word?
>> Like:
>> "ext_controller" or "extnum" (similar to "pfnum" and "vfnum") something
>> like that.
>
>How about ecnum "external controller number"?
>Tiny change in the phys_port_name below example.
>
>>
>>
>> >Which is why I started with annotating only external controllers, mainly to
>> avoid renaming and breaking current scheme for non_smartnic cases which
>> possibly is the most user base.
>> >
>> >But probably external pcipf/vf/sf port flavours are more intuitive combined
>> with controller number.
>> >More below.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > > > > I can see how having multiple controllers may make things
>> >> > > > > clearer, but adding another layer of IDs while the one under
>> >> > > > > it is unused
>> >> > > > > (pfnum=0) feels very unnecessary.
>> >> > > > pfnum=0 is used today. not sure I understand your comment about
>> >> > > > being unused. Can you please explain?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > You examples only ever have pfnum 0:
>> >> > >
>> >> > Because both controllers have pfnum 0.
>> >> >
>> >> > > From patch 2:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > $ devlink port show pci/0000:00:08.0/2
>> >> > > pci/0000:00:08.0/2: type eth netdev eth7 controller 0 flavour
>> >> > > pcivf pfnum 0 vfnum 1 splittable false
>> >> > > function:
>> >> > > hw_addr 00:00:00:00:00:00
>> >> > >
>> >> > > $ devlink port show -jp pci/0000:00:08.0/2 {
>> >> > > "port": {
>> >> > > "pci/0000:00:08.0/1": {
>> >> > > "type": "eth",
>> >> > > "netdev": "eth7",
>> >> > > "controller": 0,
>> >> > > "flavour": "pcivf",
>> >> > > "pfnum": 0,
>> >> > > "vfnum": 1,
>> >> > > "splittable": false,
>> >> > > "function": {
>> >> > > "hw_addr": "00:00:00:00:00:00"
>> >> > > }
>> >> > > }
>> >> > > }
>> >> > > }
>> >> > >
>> >> > > From earlier email:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > pci/0000:00:08.0/1: type eth netdev eth6 flavour pcipf pfnum 0
>> >> > > pci/0000:00:08.0/2: type eth netdev eth7 flavour pcipf pfnum 0
>> >> > >
>> >> > > If you never use pfnum, you can just put the controller ID there,
>> >> > > like
>> >> Netronome.
>> >> > >
>> >> > It likely not going to work for us. Because pfnum is not some
>> >> > randomly
>> >> generated number.
>> >> > It is linked to the underlying PCI pf number. {pf0, pf1...}
>> >> > Orchestration sw uses this to identify representor of a PF-VF pair.
>> >>
>> >> For orchestration software which is unaware of controllers ports will
>> >> still alias on pf/vf nums.
>> >>
>> >Yes.
>> >Orchestration which will be aware of controller, will use it.
>> >
>> >> Besides you have one devlink instance per port currently so I'm
>> >> guessing there is no pf1 ever, in your case...
>> >>
>> >Currently there are multiple devlink instance. One for pf0, other for pf1.
>> >Ports of both instances have the same switch id.
>> >
>> >> > Replacing pfnum with controller number breaks this; and it still
>> >> > doesn't tell user
>> >> that it's the pf on other_host.
>> >>
>> >> Neither does the opaque controller id.
>> >Which is why I tossed the epcipf (external pci pf) port flavour that fits in
>> current model.
>> >But doesn't allow multiple external hosts under same eswitch for those
>> devices which has same pci pf, vf numbers among those hosts. (and it is the
>> case for mlnx).
>> >
>> >> Maybe now you understand better why I wanted peer objects :/
>> >>
>> >I wasn't against peer object. But showing netdev of peer object assumed
>> no_smartnic, it also assume other_side is also similar Linux kernel.
>> >Anyways, I make humble request get over the past to move forward. :-)
>> >
>> >> > So it is used, and would like to continue to use even if there are
>> >> > multiple PFs
>> >> port (that has same pfnum) under the same eswitch.
>> >> >
>> >> > In an alternative,
>> >> > Currently we have pcipf, pcivf (and pcisf) flavours. May be if we
>> >> > introduce new
>> >> flavour say 'epcipf' to indicate external pci PF/VF/SF ports?
>> >> > There can be better name than epcipf. I just put epcipf to differentiate
>> it.
>> >> > However these ports have same attributes as pcipf, pcivf, pcisf
>> >> > flavours.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think the controllers are a terrible idea. Seems like a
>> >> fairly reasonable extension.
>> >Ok.
>> >> But MLX don't seem to need them. And you have a history of trying to
>> >> make the Linux APIs look like your FW API.
>> >>
>> >Because there are two devlink instances for each PF?
>> >I think for now an epcipf, epcivf flavour would just suffice due to lack of
>> multiple devlink instances.
>> >But in long run it is better to have the controller covering few topologies.
>> >Otherwise we will break the rep naming later when multiple controllers are
>> managed by single eswitch (without notion of controller).
>> >
>> >Sometime my text is confusing. :-) so adding example of the thoughts
>> below.
>> >Example: Eswitch side devlink port show for multi-host setup considering
>> the smartnic.
>> >
>> >$ devlink port show
>> >pci/0000:00:08.0/0: type eth netdev enp0s8f0 flavour physical
>> >pci/0000:00:08.0/1: type eth netdev enp0s8f0_pf0 flavour pcipf pfnum 0
>> >pci/0000:00:08.0/2: type eth netdev enp0s8f0_c0pf0 flavour epcipf pfnum 0
>> >
>> > ^^^^^ new port
>> flavour.
>> >pci/0000:00:08.1/0: type eth netdev enp0s8f1 flavour physical
>> >pci/0000:00:08.1/1: type eth netdev enp0s8f1_pf1 flavour pcipf pfnum 1
>> >pci/0000:00:08.1/2: type eth netdev enp0s8f1_c0pf1 flavour epcipf pfnum
>> >1
>> >
>> >Here one controller has two pci pfs (0,1}. Eswitch shows that they are
>> external pci ports.
>> >Whenever (not sure when), mlnx converts to single devlink instance, this
>> will continue to work.
>> >It will also work when multiple controller(s) (of external host) ports have
>> same switch_id (for orchestration).
>> >And this doesn't break any backward compatibility for non multihost, non
>> smatnic users.
>> >
>> >> Jiri, would you mind chiming in? What's your take?
>> >
>> >Will wait for his inputs..
>>
>> I don't see the need for new flavour. The port is still pf same as the local
>> pf, it
>> only resides on a different host. We just need to make sure to resolve the
>> conflict between PFX and PFX on 2 different hosts (local/ext or ext/ext)
>>
>Yes. I agree. I do not have strong opinion on new flavour as long as we make
>clear that this is for the external controller.
>
>> So I think that for local PFs, no change is needed.
>Yep.
>
>> The external PFs need to have an extra attribute with "external
>> enumeration" what would be used for the representor netdev name as well.
>>
>> pci/0000:00:08.0/0: type eth netdev enp0s8f0 flavour physical
>> pci/0000:00:08.0/1: type eth netdev enp0s8f0_pf0 flavour pcipf pfnum 0
>> pci/0000:00:08.0/2: type eth netdev enp0s8f0_e0pf0 flavour pcipf extnum 0
>> pfnum 0
>
>How about a prefix of "ec" instead of "e", like?
>pci/0000:00:08.0/2: type eth netdev enp0s8f0_ec0pf0 flavour pcipf ecnum 0
>pfnum 0
Yeah, looks fine to me. Jakub?
>
> ^^^^
>> pci/0000:00:08.0/3: type eth netdev enp0s8f0_e1pf0 flavour pcipf extnum 1
>> pfnum 0
>
