Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 12:31:52AM CEST, dsah...@gmail.com wrote:
>On 7/31/19 4:28 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 16:07:31 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
>>> On 7/31/19 4:02 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>>> Can you elaborate further? Ports for most purposes are represented by
>>>> netdevices. Devlink port instances expose global topological view of
>>>> the ports which is primarily relevant if you can see the entire ASIC.
>>>> I think the global configuration and global view of resources is still
>>>> the most relevant need, so in your diagram you must account for some
>>>> "all-seeing" instance, e.g.:
>>>>
>>>> namespace 1 | namespace 2 | ... | namespace N
>>>> | | |
>>>> { ports 1 } | { ports 2 } | ... | { ports N }
>>>> | | |
>>>> subdevlink 1 | subdevlink 2 | ... | subdevlink N
>>>> \______ | _______/
>>>> master ASIC devlink
>>>> =================================================
>>>> driver
>>>>
>>>> No?
>>>
>>> sure, there could be a master devlink visible to the user if that makes
>>> sense or the driver can account for it behind the scenes as the sum of
>>> the devlink instances.
>>>
>>> The goal is to allow ports within an asic [1] to be divided across
>>> network namespace where each namespace sees a subset of the ports. This
>>> allows creating multiple logical switches from a single physical asic.
>>>
>>> [1] within constraints imposed by the driver/hardware - for example to
>>> account for resources shared by a set of ports. e.g., front panel ports
>>> 1 - 4 have shared resources and must always be in the same devlink instance.
>>
>> So the ASIC would start out all partitioned? Presumably some would
>> still like to use it non-partitioned? What follows there must be a top
>> level instance to decide on partitioning, and moving resources between
>> sub-instances.
>>
>> Right now I don't think there is much info in devlink ports which would
>> be relevant without full view of the ASIC..
>>
>
>not sure how it would play out. really just 'thinking out loud' about
>the above use case to make sure devlink with proper namespace support
>allows it - or does not prevent it.
I Don't see reason or usecase to have ports or other objects of devlink
in separate namespaces. Devlink and it's objects are one big item,
should be always together.
