Re: [PATCH net-next 00/13] Add mlx5 subfunction support

From: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
To: Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com>,
	Saeed Mahameed <saeed@kernel.org>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
	"gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@nvidia.com>,
	"dledford@redhat.com" <dledford@redhat.com>,
	Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>,
	"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/13] Add mlx5 subfunction support
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 07:37:58 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9a5d1d5e-a12c-3cc1-b433-4920fb595fc3@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BY5PR12MB43221CF1FAD99DF931ADE99CDCFA0@BY5PR12MB4322.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>

On 11/24/20 11:00 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
>> From: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 11:04 AM
>>
>> On 11/18/20 10:57 PM, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
>>>
>>> We are not slicing up any queues, from our HW and FW perspective SF ==
>>> VF literally, a full blown HW slice (Function), with isolated control
>>> and data plane of its own, this is very different from VMDq and more
>>> generic and secure. an SF device is exactly like a VF, doesn't steal
>>> or share any HW resources or control/data path with others. SF is
>>> basically SRIOV done right.
>>
>> What does that mean with respect to mac filtering and ntuple rules?
>>
>> Also, Tx is fairly easy to imagine, but how does hardware know how to direct
>> packets for the Rx path? As an example, consider 2 VMs or containers with the
>> same destination ip both using subfunction devices.
> Since both VM/containers are having same IP, it is better to place them in different L2 domains via vlan, vxlan etc.

ok, so relying on <vlan, dmac> pairs.

> 
>> How does the nic know how to direct the ingress flows to the right queues for
>> the subfunction?
>>
> Rx steering occurs through tc filters via representor netdev of SF.
> Exactly same way as VF representor netdev operation.
> 
> When devlink eswitch port is created as shown in example in cover letter, and also in patch-12, it creates the representor netdevice.
> Below is the snippet of it.
> 
> Add a devlink port of subfunction flavour:
> $ devlink port add pci/0000:06:00.0 flavour pcisf pfnum 0 sfnum 88
> 
> Configure mac address of the port function:
> $ devlink port function set ens2f0npf0sf88 hw_addr 00:00:00:00:88:88
>                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> This is the representor netdevice. It is created by port add command.
> This name is setup by systemd/udev v245 and higher by utilizing the existing phys_port_name infrastructure already exists for PF and VF representors.

hardware ensures only packets with that dmac are sent to the subfunction
device.

> 
> Now user can add unicast rx tc rule for example,
> 
> $ tc filter add dev ens2f0np0 parent ffff: prio 1 flower dst_mac 00:00:00:00:88:88 action mirred egress redirect dev ens2f0npf0sf88
> 
> I didn't cover this tc example in cover letter, to keep it short.
> But I had a one line description as below in the 'detail' section of cover-letter.
> Hope it helps.
> 
> - A SF supports eswitch representation and tc offload support similar
>   to existing PF and VF representors.
> 
> Now above portion answers, how to forward the packet to subfunction.
> But how to forward to the right rx queue out of multiple rxqueues?
> This is done by the rss configuration done by the user, number of channels from ethtool.
> Just like VF and PF.
> The driver defaults are similar to VF, which user can change via ethtool.
> 

so users can add flow steering or drop rules to SF devices.

thanks,