Re: [PATCH net 0/6] bridge: Fix snooping in multi-bridge config with switchdev

From: Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@waldekranz.com>
To: "Huang\, Joseph" <Joseph.Huang@garmin.com>,
	Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@nvidia.com>,
	Roopa Prabhu <roopa@nvidia.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	"bridge\@lists.linux-foundation.org" 
	<bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	"netdev\@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/6] bridge: Fix snooping in multi-bridge config with switchdev
Date: Wed, 05 May 2021 00:29:51 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87v97ym8tc.fsf@waldekranz.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <685c25c2423c451480c0ad2cf78877be@garmin.com>

On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 20:37, "Huang, Joseph" <Joseph.Huang@garmin.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This patch-set is inappropriate for -net, if at all. It's quite late over here and I'll
>> review the rest later, but I can say from a quick peek that patch 02 is
>> unacceptable for it increases the complexity with 1 order of magnitude of all
>> add/del call paths and some of them can be invoked on user packets. A lot of
>> this functionality should be "hidden" in the driver or done by a user-space
>> daemon/helper.
>> Most of the flooding behaviour changes must be hidden behind some new
>> option otherwise they'll break user setups that rely on the current. I'll review
>> the patches in detail over the following few days, net-next is closed anyway.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>>  Nik
>
> Hi Nik,
>
> Thanks for your quick response!
> Once you have a chance to review the set, please let me know how I can improve them to make them acceptable. These are real problems and we do need to fix them.

If I may make a suggestion: I also work with mv88e6xxx systems, and we
have the same issues with known multicast not being flooded to router
ports. Knowing that chipset, I see what you are trying to do.

But other chips may work differently. Imagine for example a switch where
there is a separate vector of router ports that the hardware can OR in
after looking up the group in the ATU. This implementation would render
the performance gains possible on that device useless. As another
example, you could imagine a device where an ATU operation exists that
sets a bit in the vector of every group in a particular database;
instead of having to update each entry individually.

I think we (mv88e6xxx) will have to accept that we need to add the
proper scaffolding to manage this on the driver side. That way the
bridge can stay generic. The bridge could just provide some MDB iterator
to save us from having to cache all the configured groups.

So basically:

- In mv88e6xxx, maintain a per-switch vector of router ports.

- When a ports router state is toggled:
  1. Update the vector.
  2. Ask the bridge to iterate through all applicable groups and update
     the corresponding ATU entries.

- When a new MDB entry is updated, make sure to also OR in the current
  vector of router ports in the DPV of the ATU entry.

I would be happy to help out with testing of this!