Re: [pull request][net-next V2 00/17] mlx5 updates 2021-02-04

From: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@nvidia.com>
To: Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@gmail.com>
Cc: Saeed Mahameed <saeed@kernel.org>,
	Vlad Buslov <vladbu@mellanox.com>,
	Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [pull request][net-next V2 00/17] mlx5 updates 2021-02-04
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 18:51:53 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ygnhy2fvg91y.fsf@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ3xEMhPU=hr-wNN+g8Yq4rMqFQQGybQnn86mmbXrTTN6Xb8xw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue 09 Feb 2021 at 10:42, Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 7:10 AM Saeed Mahameed <saeed@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>> Vlad Buslov says:
>
>> Implement support for VF tunneling
>
>> Currently, mlx5 only supports configuration with tunnel endpoint IP address on
>> uplink representor. Remove implicit and explicit assumptions of tunnel always
>> being terminated on uplink and implement necessary infrastructure for
>> configuring tunnels on VF representors and updating rules on such tunnels
>> according to routing changes.
>
>> SW TC model
>
> maybe before SW TC model, you can explain the vswitch SW model (TC is
> a vehicle to implement the SW model).
>
> SW model for VST and "classic" v-switch tunnel setup:
>
> For example, in VST model, each virtio/vf/sf vport has a vlan
> such that the v-switch tags packets going out "south" of the
> vport towards the uplink, untags packets going "north" from
> the uplink, matches on the vport tag and forwards them to
> the vport (and does nothing for east-west traffic).
>
> In a similar manner, in "classic" v-switch tunnel setup, each
> virtio/vf/sf vport is somehow associated with VNI/s marking the
> tenant/s it belongs to. Same tenant east-west traffic on the
> host doesn't go through any encap/decap. The v-switch adds the
> relevant tunnel MD to packets/skbs sent "southward" by the end-point
> and forwards it to the VTEP which applies encap based on the MD (LWT
> scheme) and sends the packets to the wire. On RX, the VTEP decaps
> the tunnel info from the packet, adds it as MD to the skb and
> forwards the packet up into the stack where the vsw hooks it, matches
> on the MD + inner tuple and then forwards it to the relevant endpoint.

Moving tunnel endpoint to VF doesn't change anything in this
high-level description.

>
> HW offloads for VST and "classic" v-switch tunnel setup:
>
> more or less straight forward based on the above
>
>> From TC perspective VF tunnel configuration requires two rules in both
>> directions:
>
>> TX rules
>> 1. Rule that redirects packets from UL to VF rep that has the tunnel
>> endpoint IP address:
>> 2. Rule that decapsulates the tunneled flow and redirects to destination VF
>> representor:
>
>> RX rules
>> 1. Rule that encapsulates the tunneled flow and redirects packets from
>> source VF rep to tunnel device:
>> 2. Rule that redirects from tunnel device to UL rep:
>
> mmm it's kinda hard managing to follow and catch up a SW model from TC rules..
>
> I think we need these two to begin with (in whatever order that works
> better for you)
>
> [1] Motivation for enhanced v-switch tunnel setup:
>
> [2] SW model for enhanced v-switch tunnel setup:
>
>> HW offloads model
>
> a clear SW model before HW offloads model..

Hope my replies to Jakub and Marcelo also address these.

>
>>  25 files changed, 3812 insertions(+), 1057 deletions(-)
>
> for adding almost 4K LOCs