Re: [PATCH net-next 1/5] devlink: Add port-level resource infrastructure
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Date: 2026-02-04 09:51:59
Also in:
linux-doc, linux-kselftest, linux-rdma, lkml
Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 08:10:29AM +0100, tariqt@nvidia.com wrote:
From: Or Har-Toov <redacted> The current devlink resource infrastructure only supports device-level resources. Some hardware resources are associated with specific ports rather than the entire device, and today we have no way to show resource per-port. Add support for registering and querying resources at the port level, allowing drivers to expose per-port resource limits and usage. Example output: $ devlink port resource show pci/0000:03:00.0/196608: name max_SFs size 20 unit entry pci/0000:03:00.1/262144: name max_SFs size 20 unit entry $ devlink port resource show pci/0000:03:00.0/196608 pci/0000:03:00.0/196608: name max_SFs size 20 unit entry Signed-off-by: Or Har-Toov <redacted> Reviewed-by: Shay Drori <redacted> Reviewed-by: Moshe Shemesh <redacted> Signed-off-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com> --- Documentation/netlink/specs/devlink.yaml | 23 ++ include/net/devlink.h | 8 + include/uapi/linux/devlink.h | 2 + net/devlink/netlink.c | 2 +- net/devlink/netlink_gen.c | 32 ++- net/devlink/netlink_gen.h | 6 +- net/devlink/port.c | 3 + net/devlink/resource.c | 282 ++++++++++++++++++----- 8 files changed, 301 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
Way too big for a single patch. Could you split it in logical chunks please?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/Documentation/netlink/specs/devlink.yaml b/Documentation/netlink/specs/devlink.yaml index 837112da6738..0290db1b8393 100644 --- a/Documentation/netlink/specs/devlink.yaml +++ b/Documentation/netlink/specs/devlink.yaml@@ -2336,3 +2336,26 @@ operations: - bus-name - dev-name - port-index + + - + name: port-resource-get
Why this is not aligned with DEVLINK_CMD_RESOURCE_* ? $ git grep CMD_RESOURCE_ include/uapi/linux/devlink.h include/uapi/linux/devlink.h: DEVLINK_CMD_RESOURCE_SET, include/uapi/linux/devlink.h: DEVLINK_CMD_RESOURCE_DUMP, I'm aware that DEVLINK_CMD_RESOURCE_DUMP only implements "do" now, but I think both should be named the same, no?
+ doc: Get port resources. + attribute-set: devlink + dont-validate: [strict] + do: + pre: devlink-nl-pre-doit-port + post: devlink-nl-post-doit + request: + value: 85 + attributes: *port-id-attrs + reply: &port-resource-get-reply + value: 85 + attributes: + - bus-name + - dev-name + - port-index + - resource-list + dump: + request: + attributes: *dev-id-attrs + reply: *port-resource-get-reply
[...]
-int devl_resource_register(struct devlink *devlink, - const char *resource_name, - u64 resource_size, - u64 resource_id, - u64 parent_resource_id, - const struct devlink_resource_size_params *size_params) +static int +devl_resource_reg_by_list(struct devlink *devlink,
can't this be "register"? Also, why "by_list"? Sounds odd. Could you perhaps have it as __devl_resource_register(). That's the usual pattern for similar functions here, isn't it? Also, could you do this "list" abstraction in a separate patch?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ struct list_head *res_list_head, + const char *resource_name, u64 resource_size, + u64 resource_id, u64 parent_res_id, + const struct devlink_resource_size_params *params) { struct devlink_resource *resource; struct list_head *resource_list;@@ -341,9 +344,10 @@ int devl_resource_register(struct devlink *devlink,lockdep_assert_held(&devlink->lock); - top_hierarchy = parent_resource_id == DEVLINK_RESOURCE_ID_PARENT_TOP; + top_hierarchy = parent_res_id == DEVLINK_RESOURCE_ID_PARENT_TOP; - resource = devlink_resource_find(devlink, NULL, resource_id); + resource = devlink_resource_find_by_list(res_list_head, NULL, + resource_id); if (resource) return -EEXIST;@@ -352,15 +356,15 @@ int devl_resource_register(struct devlink *devlink,return -ENOMEM; if (top_hierarchy) { - resource_list = &devlink->resource_list; + resource_list = res_list_head; } else { - struct devlink_resource *parent_resource; + struct devlink_resource *parent_res; - parent_resource = devlink_resource_find(devlink, NULL, - parent_resource_id); - if (parent_resource) { - resource_list = &parent_resource->resource_list; - resource->parent = parent_resource; + parent_res = devlink_resource_find_by_list(res_list_head, NULL, + parent_res_id); + if (parent_res) { + resource_list = &parent_res->resource_list; + resource->parent = parent_res; } else { kfree(resource); return -EINVAL;@@ -372,46 +376,78 @@ int devl_resource_register(struct devlink *devlink,resource->size_new = resource_size; resource->id = resource_id; resource->size_valid = true; - memcpy(&resource->size_params, size_params, - sizeof(resource->size_params)); + memcpy(&resource->size_params, params, sizeof(resource->size_params)); INIT_LIST_HEAD(&resource->resource_list); list_add_tail(&resource->list, resource_list); return 0; } + +/** + * devl_resource_register - devlink resource register + * + * @devlink: devlink + * @resource_name: resource's name + * @resource_size: resource's size + * @resource_id: resource's id + * @parent_resource_id: resource's parent id + * @params: size parameters + * + * Generic resources should reuse the same names across drivers. + * Please see the generic resources list at: + * Documentation/networking/devlink/devlink-resource.rst + * + * Return: 0 on success, negative error code otherwise. + */ +int devl_resource_register(struct devlink *devlink, const char *resource_name, + u64 resource_size, u64 resource_id, + u64 parent_resource_id, + const struct devlink_resource_size_params *params) +{ + return devl_resource_reg_by_list(devlink, &devlink->resource_list, + resource_name, resource_size, + resource_id, parent_resource_id, + params); +}
[...]