On Thu, 24 May 2018 20:04:56 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 5:22 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:

quoted

Hi!

This series from John adds bond offload to the nfp driver.  Patch 5
exposes the hash type for NETDEV_LAG_TX_TYPE_HASH to make sure nfp
hashing matches that of the software LAG.  This may be unnecessarily
conservative, let's see what LAG maintainers think :)

John says:

This patchset sets up the infrastructure and offloads output actions for
when a TC flower rule attempts to egress a packet to a LAG port.

Firstly it adds some of the infrastructure required to the flower app and
to the nfp core. This includes the ability to change the MAC address of a
repr, a function for combining lookup and write to a FW symbol, and the
addition of private data to a repr on a per app basis.

Patch 6 continues by implementing notifiers that track Linux bonds and
communicates to the FW those which enslave reprs, along with the current
state of reprs within the bond.

Patch 7 ensures bonds are synchronised with FW by receiving and acting
upon cmsgs sent to the kernel. These may request that a bond message is
retransmitted when FW can process it, or may request a full sync of the
bonds defined in the kernel.

Patch 8 offloads a flower action when that action requires egressing to a
pre-defined Linux bond.  

Does this apply also to non-uplink representors? if yes, what is the use case?

We are looking on supporting uplink lag in sriov switchdev scheme - we refer to
it as "vf lag" -- b/c the netdev and rdma devices seen by the VF are actually
subject to HA and/or LAG - I wasn't sure if/how you limit this series
to uplink reprs

I don't think we have a limitation on the output port within the LAG.
But keep in mind in our devices all ports belong to the same eswitch/PF
so bonding uplink ports is generally sufficient, I'm not sure VF
bonding adds much HA.  IOW AFAIK we support VF bonding because HW can do
it easily, not because we have a strong use case for it.