On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 18:18, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 05:05:35PM +0100, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 12:35, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 09:54:34AM +0100, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
>> >> >> + if (!dsa_port_can_configure_learning(dp) || dp->learning) {
>> >> >> + switch (state->state) {
>> >> >> + case BR_STATE_DISABLED:
>> >> >> + case BR_STATE_BLOCKING:
>> >> >> + case BR_STATE_LISTENING:
>> >> >> + /* Ideally we would only fast age entries
>> >> >> + * belonging to VLANs controlled by this
>> >> >> + * MST.
>> >> >> + */
>> >> >> + dsa_port_fast_age(dp);
>> >> >
>> >> > Does mv88e6xxx support this? If it does, you might just as well
>> >> > introduce another variant of ds->ops->port_fast_age() for an msti.
>> >>
>> >> You can limit ATU operations to a particular FID. So the way I see it we
>> >> could either have:
>> >>
>> >> int (*port_vlan_fast_age)(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port, u16 vid)
>> >>
>> >> + Maybe more generic. You could imagine there being a way to trigger
>> >> this operation from userspace for example.
>> >> - We would have to keep the VLAN<->MSTI mapping in the DSA layer in
>> >> order to be able to do the fan-out in dsa_port_set_mst_state.
>> >>
>> >> or:
>> >>
>> >> int (*port_msti_fast_age)(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port, u16 msti)
>> >>
>> >> + Let's the mapping be an internal affair in the driver.
>> >> - Perhaps, less generically useful.
>> >>
>> >> Which one do you prefer? Or is there a hidden third option? :)
>> >
>> > Yes, I was thinking of "port_msti_fast_age". I don't see a cheap way of
>> > keeping VLAN to MSTI associations in the DSA layer. Only if we could
>> > retrieve this mapping from the bridge layer - maybe with something
>> > analogous to br_vlan_get_info(), but br_mst_get_info(), and this gets
>> > passed a VLAN_N_VID sized bitmap, which the bridge populates with ones
>> > and zeroes.
>>
>> That can easily be done. Given that, should we go for port_vlan_fast_age
>> instead? port_msti_fast_age feels like an awkward interface, since I
>> don't think there is any hardware out there that can actually perform
>> that operation without internally fanning it out over all affected VIDs
>> (or FIDs in the case of mv88e6xxx).
>
> Yup, yup. My previous email was all over the place with regard to the
> available options, because I wrote it in multiple phases so it wasn't
> chronologically ordered top-to-bottom. But port_vlan_fast_age() makes
> the most sense if you can implement br_mst_get_info(). Same goes for
> dsa_port_notify_bridge_fdb_flush().
>
>> > The reason why I asked for this is because I'm not sure of the
>> > implications of flushing the entire FDB of the port for a single MSTP
>> > state change. It would trigger temporary useless flooding in other MSTIs
>> > at the very least. There isn't any backwards compatibility concern to
>> > speak of, so we can at least try from the beginning to limit the
>> > flushing to the required VLANs.
>>
>> Aside from the performance implications of flows being temporarily
>> flooded I don't think there are any.
>>
>> I suppose if you've disabled flooding of unknown unicast on that port,
>> you would loose the flow until you see some return traffic (or when one
>> side gives up and ARPs). While somewhat esoteric, it would be nice to
>> handle this case if the hardware supports it.
>
> If by "handle this case" you mean "flush only the affected VLANs", then
> yes, I fully agree.
>
>> > What I didn't think about, and will be a problem, is
>> > dsa_port_notify_bridge_fdb_flush() - we don't know the vid to flush.
>> > The easy way out here would be to export dsa_port_notify_bridge_fdb_flush(),
>> > add a "vid" argument to it, and let drivers call it. Thoughts?
>>
>> To me, this seems to be another argument in favor of
>> port_vlan_fast_age. That way you would know the VIDs being flushed at
>> the DSA layer, and driver writers needn't concern themselves with having
>> to remember to generate the proper notifications back to the bridge.
>
> See above.
>
>> > Alternatively, if you think that cross-flushing FDBs of multiple MSTIs
>> > isn't a real problem, I suppose we could keep the "port_fast_age" method.
>>
>> What about falling back to it if the driver doesn't support per-VLAN
>> flushing? Flushing all entries will work in most cases, at the cost of
>> some temporary flooding. Seems more useful than refusing the offload
>> completely.
>
> So here's what I don't understand. Do you expect a driver other than
> mv88e6xxx to do something remotely reasonable under a bridge with MSTP
> enabled? The idea being to handle gracefully the case where a port is
> BLOCKING in an MSTI but FORWARDING in another. Because if not, let's
> just outright not offload that kind of bridge, and only concern
> ourselves with what MST-capable drivers can do.
I think you're right. I was trying to make it easier for other driver
writers, but it will just be more confusing and error prone.
Alright, so v3 will have something like this:
bool dsa_port_can_offload_mst(struct dsa_port *dp)
{
return ds->ops->vlan_msti_set &&
ds->ops->port_mst_state_set &&
ds->ops->port_vlan_fast_age &&
dsa_port_can_configure_learning(dp);
}
If this returns false, we have two options:
1. Return -EOPNOTSUPP, which the bridge will be unable to discriminate
from a non-switchdev port saying "I have no idea what you're talking
about". I.e. the bridge will happily apply the config, but the
hardware won't match. I don't like this, but it lines up with most
other stuff.
2. Return a hard error, e.g. -EINVAL/-ENOSYS. This will keep the bridge
in sync with the hardware and also gives some feedback to the
user. This seems like the better approach to me, but it is a new kind
of paradigm.
What do you think?
> I'm shadowing you with a prototype (and untested so far) MSTP
> implementation for the ocelot/felix drivers, and those switches can
> flush the MAC table per VLAN too. So I don't see an immediate need to
> have a fallback implementation if you'll also provide it for mv88e6xxx.
> Let's treat that only if the need arises.
Cool. Agreed, v3 will implement .port_vlan_fast_age for mv88e6xxx.
