On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 08:56:09 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Sat, Mar 02, 2019 at 08:48:47PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote: > >On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 10:41:16 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >> Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 07:04:50PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote: > >> >PCI endpoint corresponds to a PCI device, but such device > >> >can have one more more logical device ports associated with it. > >> >We need a way to distinguish those. Add a PCI subport in the > >> >dumps and print the info in phys_port_name appropriately. > >> > > >> >This is not equivalent to port splitting, there is no split > >> >group. It's just a way of representing multiple netdevs on > >> >a single PCI function. > >> > > >> >Note that the quality of being multiport pertains only to > >> >the PCI function itself. A PF having multiple netdevs does > >> >not mean that its VFs will also have multiple, or that VFs > >> >are associated with any particular port of a multiport VF. > >> > > >> >Example (bus 05 device has subports, bus 82 has only one port per > >> >function): > >> > > >> >$ devlink port > >> >pci/0000:05:00.0/0: type eth netdev enp5s0np0 flavour physical > >> >pci/0000:05:00.0/10000: type eth netdev enp5s0npf0s0 flavour pci_pf pf 0 > >> >subport 0 > >> >pci/0000:05:00.0/4: type eth netdev enp5s0np1 flavour physical > >> >pci/0000:05:00.0/11000: type eth netdev enp5s0npf0s1 flavour pci_pf pf 0 > >> >subport 1 > >> > >> So these subport devlink ports are eswitch ports for subports, right? > >> > >> Please see the following drawing: > >> > >> +---+ +---+ +---+ > >> pfsub| 5 | vf| 6 | | 7 |pfsub > >> +-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+ > >> physical link <---------+ | | | > >> | | | | > >> | | | | > >> | | | | > >> +-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+ > >> | 1 | | 2 | | 3 | | 4 | > >> +--+---+------+---+------+---+------+---+--+ > >> | physical pfsub vf pfsub | > >> | port port port port | > >> | | > >> | eswitch | > >> | | > >> | | > >> +------------------------------------------+ > >> > >> 1) pci/0000:05:00.0/0: type eth netdev enp5s0np0 flavour physical > >> switch_id 00154d130d2f > >> 2) pci/0000:05:00.0/10000: type eth netdev enp5s0npf0s0 flavour pci_pf pf > >> 0 subport 0 switch_id 00154d130d2f > >> 3) pci/0000:05:00.0/10001: type eth netdev enp5s0npf0vf0 flavour pci_vf pf > >> 0 vf 0 switch_id 00154d130d2f > >> 4) pci/0000:05:00.0/10001: type eth netdev enp5s0npf0s1 flavour pci_pf pf > >> 0 subport 1 switch_id 00154d130d2f > >> > >> This is basically what you have and I think we are in sync with that. > >> But what about 5,6,7? Should they have devlink port instances too? > >> > >> 5) pci/0000:05:00.0/1: type eth netdev enp5s0f0?? flavour ???? pf 0 > >> subport 0 > >> 6) pci/0000:05:10.1/0: type eth netdev enp5s10f0 flavour ???? pf 0 vf 0 > >> 7) pci/0000:05:00.0/1: type eth netdev enp5s0f0?? flavour ???? pf 0 > >> subport 1 > >> > >> These are the "peers". > >> I think that there could be flavours "pci_pf" and "pci_vf". Then the > >> "representors" (switch ports) could have flavours "pci_pf_port" and > >> "pci_vf_port" or something like that. User can see right away > >> that is not "PF" of "VF" but rather something "on the other end". > >> Note there is no "switch_id" for these devlink ports that tells the user > >> these devlink ports are not part of any switch. > >> What do you think? > > > >Hmmm.. Hm. Hm. > > > >To me its neat if the devlink instance matches an ASIC. I think it's > >kind of clear for people to understand what it stands for then. So if > >we wanted to do the above we'd have to make the switch_id the first > >class identifier for devlink instances, rather than the bus? But then > > What do you mean by "first class identifier"? Like "a handle"?
Yes, a handle. > >VF instances don't have a switch ID so that doesn't work... > > Wait a sec. VF-ports do have. VFs them selves don't. Looking at your example this one: 6) pci/0000:05:10.1/0: type eth netdev enp5s10f0 flavour ???? pf 0 vf 0 that uses VF's DBDF in the devlink instance handle, so I presume this is a VF's devlink instance that will get passed to the VM together with the VF device? > But that is the same for PF. PF would also not have switch id. Yes :( You'd have to mark what constitutes a devlink instance on your drawing. The semantics for devlink instances seem to be the focal point of the discussion. Right now it seems a little bit that folks on the NIC side see a devlink instance as a PCI function and on switch side it's the whole ASIC. > >I need to think about it. > > > >It's also kind of strange that we have to add the noun *port* to the > >flavour of... a port... So I would prefer not to have those showing up > > Yeah. > > >as ports. Can we invent a new command (say "partition"?) that'd take > >the bus info where the partition is to be spawned? > > Got it. But the question is how different this object would be from the > existing "port" we have today. They'd be where "the other side of a PCI link" is represented, restricting ports to only ASIC's forwarding plane ports. > >My next goal is to find a way of grouping multiple bus devices under one > >"ASIC" (which is a devlink instance to me) so it can be understood > >easily how things are laid out when there is more than one PF connected > >to one host. > > These are the "aliases" you mentioned before right? Makes sense. Yes.
