On 7/29/21 7:13 AM, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote:

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Rybchenko <redacted>
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 5:00 PM
To: Xueming(Steven) Li <redacted>; Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>; Somnath Kotur
[off-list ref]; John Daley [off-list ref]; Hyong Youb Kim [off-list ref]; Beilei Xing
[off-list ref]; Qiming Yang [off-list ref]; Qi Zhang [off-list ref]; Haiyue Wang
[off-list ref]; Matan Azrad [off-list ref]; Shahaf Shuler [off-list ref]; Slava Ovsiienko
[off-list ref]; NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon [off-list ref]; Ferruh Yigit [off-list ref]
Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Viacheslav Galaktionov <redacted>; stable@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ethdev: fix representor port ID search by name

On 7/19/21 3:50 PM, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote:

quoted

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Rybchenko <redacted>
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 8:36 PM
To: Xueming(Steven) Li <redacted>; Ajit Khaparde
[off-list ref]; Somnath Kotur
[off-list ref]; John Daley [off-list ref]; Hyong
Youb Kim [off-list ref]; Beilei Xing [off-list ref];
Qiming Yang [off-list ref]; Qi Zhang [off-list ref];
Haiyue Wang [off-list ref]; Matan Azrad [off-list ref];
Shahaf Shuler [off-list ref]; Slava Ovsiienko
[off-list ref]; NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon
[off-list ref]; Ferruh Yigit [off-list ref]
Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Viacheslav Galaktionov
[off-list ref]; stable@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ethdev: fix representor port ID search by name

On 7/19/21 2:54 PM, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote:

quoted

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Rybchenko <redacted>
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 4:46 PM
To: Xueming(Steven) Li <redacted>; Ajit Khaparde
[off-list ref]; Somnath Kotur
[off-list ref]; John Daley [off-list ref];
Hyong Youb Kim [off-list ref]; Beilei Xing
[off-list ref]; Qiming Yang [off-list ref]; Qi
Zhang [off-list ref]; Haiyue Wang [off-list ref];
Matan Azrad [off-list ref]; Shahaf Shuler [off-list ref];
Slava Ovsiienko [off-list ref]; NBU-Contact-Thomas
Monjalon [off-list ref]; Ferruh Yigit
[off-list ref]
Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Viacheslav Galaktionov
[off-list ref]; stable@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ethdev: fix representor port ID search by name

On 7/19/21 9:58 AM, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote:

quoted

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Rybchenko <redacted>
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2021 12:18 AM
To: Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>; Somnath Kotur
[off-list ref]; John Daley [off-list ref];
Hyong Youb Kim [off-list ref]; Beilei Xing
[off-list ref]; Qiming Yang [off-list ref]; Qi
Zhang [off-list ref]; Haiyue Wang
[off-list ref]; Matan Azrad [off-list ref]; Shahaf
Shuler [off-list ref]; Slava Ovsiienko
[off-list ref]; NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon
[off-list ref]; Ferruh Yigit [off-list ref];
Xueming(Steven) Li [off-list ref]
Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Viacheslav Galaktionov
[off-list ref]; stable@dpdk.org
Subject: [PATCH] ethdev: fix representor port ID search by name

From: Viacheslav Galaktionov
[off-list ref]

Fix representor port ID search by name if the representor itself
does not provide representors info. Getting a list of
representors from a representor does not make sense. Instead, a
parent device

should be used.

quoted

quoted

To this end, extend the rte_eth_dev_data structure to include the port ID of the parent device for representors.

Fixes: df7547a6a2cc ("ethdev: add helper function to get
representor
ID")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org

Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Galaktionov
[off-list ref]
Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko <redacted>
---
The new field is added into the hole in rte_eth_dev_data structure.
The patch does not change ABI, but extra care is required since
ABI check is disabled for the structure because of the libabigail
bug

[1].

quoted

quoted

Potentially it is bad for out-of-tree drivers which implement
representors but do not fill in a new parert_port_id field in rte_eth_dev_data structure. Do we care?

May be the patch should add lines to release notes, but I'd like to get initial feedback first.

mlx5 changes should be reviwed by maintainers very carefully, since we are not sure if we patch it correctly.

[1] https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28060

[snip]

quoted

quoted

--- a/lib/ethdev/ethdev_driver.h
+++ b/lib/ethdev/ethdev_driver.h

@@ -1248,8 +1248,8 @@ struct rte_eth_devargs {
      * For backward compatibility, if no representor info, direct
      * map legacy VF (no controller and pf).
      *
- * @param ethdev
- *  Handle of ethdev port.
+ * @param parent_port_id
+ *  Port ID of the backing device.
      * @param type
      *  Representor type.
      * @param controller

@@ -1266,7 +1266,7 @@ struct rte_eth_devargs {
      */
     __rte_internal
     int
-rte_eth_representor_id_get(const struct rte_eth_dev *ethdev,
+rte_eth_representor_id_get(uint16_t parent_port_id,

It make more sense to get representor info from parent port.
Representor is a member of switch domain, PMD owns the information
of the representor owner port and info of representors. This
change looks better, but not sure whether it valuable to introduce
a new

member to the EAL data structure.

IMHO, it is simply incorrect to return representors info on a
representor itself. Representor info is an information which representors may be populated using the device.

If above statement is correct, we need a way to get parent device
by representor to do name to representor ID mapping. I see two options to do it:
     A. Dedicated field in rte_eth_dev_data as the patch does.
     B. Dedicated ethdev op (since representor knows parent port ID anyway).
We have chosen (A) because of simplicity.

Just recalled that representor port could be probed w/o owner PF, is a force for parent port?

I thought that it is impossible and parent port is absolutely
required for a representor. Could you provide an example and explain how will it work?

In case of bonding, PF0 and PF1 become one PF port `bond0`, PCI address is PF0.
	-a <PF0>,representor=pf[0-1]vf[0-99] // this is the syntax we proposed.

Is it net/bonding or vendor-specific bonding in HW?
If I remember correctly in the case of net/bonding we have ethdev ports for bonded devices.

Not net/bonding pmd, it's Linux bonding, supported by hw driver.

Got it.

quoted

quoted

To be backward compatible, also support the following 2 devargs:
	-a <pf0>,representor=[0-99] // probe bond0 and representor on pf0
	-a <pf1>,representor=[0-99] // probe representors on pf1.
If devargs start with PF1 devargs, no owner PF1 created as it disabled
in bonding. Can't create bond0(PF0) automatically here as device is located by PCI address(PF1) from devargs.

So, I guess the problem is vendor-specific bonding in HW. Anyway legacy backward compatible representor spec should not require
representors info since it worked before without it. So, it does not sound like a reason to have representors info on a representor
itself.

Legacy backward logic could be something like this: if PF owner port found, use it, fallback to current representor.
This won't break anything I guess, how do you think? 

Logically even in legacy backward compatibility PF1 VFs representors
have parent port ID - PF0 which is a bond of PF0 & PF1. So,
parent_port_id should be filled in. In this case eth_representor_cmp()
will do rte_eth_representor_id_get(PF0-bond-id, -1, -1, VF, &id) which
will return PF0 VF representor ID. Most likely it will even match and
everything works, but it is still incorrect.

In fact, I have another idea. Try to do:
rte_eth_representor_id_get(representor-port-id, ...) first
for the backward compatibility case and, if not supported, do
it on parent port ID.