From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24EDDC388F9 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 19:01:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D07AD20878 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 19:01:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="gYvXflCF" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1829248AbgJ0TBk (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Oct 2020 15:01:40 -0400 Received: from mail-ej1-f66.google.com ([209.85.218.66]:45665 "EHLO mail-ej1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S371405AbgJ0TAi (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Oct 2020 15:00:38 -0400 Received: by mail-ej1-f66.google.com with SMTP id dt13so3733698ejb.12 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 12:00:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=az8VFET1WhsSjz7mH2nI1tqLyWgLT5pqSsqd01E44jk=; b=gYvXflCF2nRHKouN8rUg+66r7LcT/A3JBhr4+mN74JJ/6/B1k9eJmIM+CJko6qSSa2 7WtM6lbLi81z7J+F9NdPIZ0S+nAR5zNNI6sxHzV/8LXPvxqafU1vocHiiOYBlbf4CacE /mujn1sPyp3vgsceIfkSVmkjUb+PffH8hdZSp/iKSb01qJywdPB6GolXrgRzBFxEVlUF pYR1oC3ekR77u7zMDqAh2qkNJxI5zCo+Zzu62slZryqkoeoC3llJnDvK0kNz9OstOPVy KrVDYALkoi3VmPsZuM1VAdBnKGQQki9LwfA9Ea+HXC/WJRLNR/AYh8Ob8rpc5WAEf1Dl 3qog== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=az8VFET1WhsSjz7mH2nI1tqLyWgLT5pqSsqd01E44jk=; b=PshdIAcCpGdw6xlPyFf71A8NKXCKUa5400q6BfNmWQd2lP02RbFbZjSOzO/XLquE4U 2+r6GmhWRrKtUsExKEofgLrKkJ6K6lM/iMSq0CIdbIbp7mj8VylaNsOobQzxDeaM///s 5AdCJlld3aX2Kerjhu7zRfp07k0jBJGihCSez88Nm1H65mSxnh53hLEHIUYTmyva/qO5 1t83Jqed/6ZlYkC8NDOII0ZexcpxlxZeA6PhwgtpnuWT0+D3wIk+mPyVyf01WRYJnDez m9CQIQNMIlpft7ANbqPc35wuozBCcpTLtOtAsdbkZCREYCcWZj3vdPwqNKR3XDl2koTs q/pQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Hj72hqYsKRT03eHAKFDxH9Dnq7kgGZRQwKTyuOHHA4F3ca/Ub ph7PuedLQ/GhHtDvuruJjPs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy1BoIY1MAWnz+HMbho+sy2I/qs43uxBWGIPAHTYCZ0JSip9nhSKS6BG2SvOEHF57UnU5JiAA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:c095:: with SMTP id f21mr4085503ejz.108.1603825236230; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 12:00:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from skbuf ([188.25.2.177]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i17sm1480938edr.49.2020.10.27.12.00.34 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 27 Oct 2020 12:00:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 21:00:34 +0200 From: Vladimir Oltean To: Tobias Waldekranz Cc: Andrew Lunn , Marek Behun , vivien.didelot@gmail.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] net: dsa: link aggregation support Message-ID: <20201027190034.utk3kkywc54zuxfn@skbuf> References: <20201027105117.23052-1-tobias@waldekranz.com> <20201027160530.11fc42db@nic.cz> <20201027152330.GF878328@lunn.ch> <87k0vbv84z.fsf@waldekranz.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87k0vbv84z.fsf@waldekranz.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 07:25:16PM +0100, Tobias Waldekranz wrote: > > 1) trunk user ports, with team/bonding controlling it > > 2) trunk DSA ports, i.e. the ports between switches in a D in DSA setup > > 3) trunk CPU ports. [...] > I think that (2) and (3) are essentially the same problem, i.e. creating > LAGs out of DSA links, be they switch-to-switch or switch-to-cpu > connections. I think you are correct that the CPU port can not be a > LAG/trunk, but I believe that limitation only applies to TO_CPU packets. Which would still be ok? They are called "slow protocol PDUs" for a reason. > In order for this to work on transmit, we need to add forward offloading > to the bridge so that we can, for example, send one FORWARD from the CPU > to send an ARP broadcast to swp1..4 instead of four FROM_CPUs. That surely sounds like an interesting (and tough to implement) optimization to increase the throughput, but why would it be _needed_ for things to work? What's wrong with 4 FROM_CPU packets?