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

From: "Huang, Joseph" <Joseph.Huang@garmin.com>
To: Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@waldekranz.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: Tue, 4 May 2021 23:26:09 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <82693dbedd524f94b5a6223f0287525c@garmin.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87v97ym8tc.fsf@waldekranz.com>

> 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!

Thanks for the suggestion/offer!

What patch 0002 does is that:

- When an mrouter port is added/deleted, it iterates over the list of mdb's
  to add/delete that port to/from the group in the hardware (I think this is
  what your bullet #2 does as well, except that one is done in the bridge,
  and the other is done in the driver)

- When a group is added/deleted, it iterates over the list of mrouter ports
  to add/delete the switchdev programming

I think what Nik is objecting to is that with this approach, there's now
a for-loop in the call paths (thus it "increases the complexity with 1 order
of magnitude), however I can't think of a way to avoid the looping (whether
done inside the bridge or in the driver) but still achieve the same result
(for Marvell at least).

I suspect that other SOHO switches might have this problem as well (Broadcom
comes to mind).

Thanks,
Joseph