On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 16:02:15 +0200 Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 03:56:33PM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 05:22:58PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > [...] > [...] > [...] > > > > > > I think we will need two event, the base regulator event, and a > > > networking event. Since it is a regulator, sending a normal regulator > > > event makes a lot of sense. But mapping that regulator event to a > > > netns:ifnam is going to be hard. Anything wanting to take an action is > > > probably going to want to use ethtool, and so needs to be in the > > > correct netns, etc. But it does get messy if there is some sort of > > > software driven prioritisation going on, some daemon needs to pick a > > > victim to reduce power to, and the interfaces are spread over multiple > > > network namespaces. > > > > > > What i don't know is if we can use an existing event, or we should add > > > a new one. Often rtnetlink_event() is used: > > > > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc1/source/net/core/rtnetlink.c#L6679 > > > > > > but without some PSE information in it, it would be hard to know why > > > it was sent. So we probably either want a generic ethtool event, or a > > > PSE event. > > > > Hm... assuming we have following scenario: > > > > .--------- PI 1 > > / .--------- PI 2 > > .========= PSE /----------( PI 3 ) NNS red > > // \----------( PI 4 ) NNS blue > > Main supply // `---------( PI 5 ) NNS blue > > o================´--- System, CPU > > > > In this case we seems to have a new challenge: > > > > On one side, a system wide power manager should see and mange all ports. > > On other side, withing a name space, we should be able to play in a > > isolated sand box. There is a reason why it is isolated. So, we should > > be able to sandbox power delivery and port prios too. Means, by creating > > network names space, we will need a power names space. > > > > I can even imagine a use case: an admin limited access to a switch for > > developer. A developer name space is created with PSE budget and max > > prios available for this name space. This will prevent users from DoSing > > system critical ports. > > > > At this point, creating a power name space will an overkill for this > > patch set, so it should be enough to allow controlling prios over > > ethtool per port and isolation support if needed. Yes, I will add simple ethtool notification for now to report events on each interfaces. > Oh, sorry, i'm too tired. Too many words are missing in my answer ... Nearly the weekend!! Rest well! Regards, -- Köry Maincent, Bootlin Embedded Linux and kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
