Re: [PATCH v2 01/17] IB/Verbs: Implement new callback query_transport() for each HW

[ira.weiny]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 01:17:23PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 02:24:26PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> 
> > IPoIB is more than just an ULP.  It's a spec.  And it's very IB
> > specific.  It will only work with OPA because OPA is imitating IB.
> > To run it on another fabric, you would need more than just to make
> > it work.  If the new fabric doesn't have a broadcast group, or has
> > multicast registration like IB does, you need the equivalent of
> > IBTA, whatever that may be for this new fabric, buy in on the
> > pre-defined multicast groups and you might need firmware support in
> > the switches.
> 
> It feels like the 'cap_ib_addressing' or whatever we call it captures
> this very well. The IPoIB RFC is very much concerned with GID's and
> MGID's and broadly requires the IBA addressing
> scheme. cap_ib_addressing asserts the port uses that scheme. 
> 
> We wouldn't accept patches to IPoIB to add a new addressing scheme
> without seeing proper diligence to the standards work.
> 
> Looking away from the stadards, using cap_XX seems very sane: We are
> building a well defined system of invarients, You can't call into the
> sa functions if cap_sa is not set, you can't call into the mcast
> functions if cap_mcast is not set, you can't form a AH from IB
> GIDs/MGID/LID without cap_ib_addressing.

Yep.

> 
> I makes so much sense for the ULP to directly require the needed cap's
> for the kernel APIs it intends to call, or not use the RDMA port at
> all.

Yes.

So trying to sum up.

Have we settled on the following "capabilities"?  Helper function names aside.

/* legacy to communicate to userspace */
RDMA_LINK_LAYER_IB       = 0x0000000000000001,
RDMA_LINK_LAYER_ETH      = 0x0000000000000002,
RDMA_LINK_LAYER_MASK     = 0x000000000000000f, /* more bits? */
	/* I'm hoping we don't need more bits here */


/* legacy to communicate to userspace */
RDMA_TRANSPORT_IB        = 0x0000000000000010,
RDMA_TRANSPORT_IWARP     = 0x0000000000000020,
RDMA_TRANSPORT_USNIC     = 0x0000000000000040,
RDMA_TRANSPORT_USNIC_UDP = 0x0000000000000080,
RDMA_TRANSPORT_MASK      = 0x00000000000000f0, /* more bits? */
	/* I'm hoping we don't need more bits here */


/* New flags */

RDMA_MGMT_IB_MAD         = 0x0000000000000100, /* ib_mad module support */
RDMA_MGMT_QP0            = 0x0000000000000200, /* ib_mad QP0 support */
RDMA_MGMT_IB_SA          = 0x0000000000000400, /* ib_sa module support */
					       /* NOTE includes IB Mcast */
RDMA_MGMT_IB_CM          = 0x0000000000000800, /* ib_cm module support */
RDMA_MGMT_OPA_MAD        = 0x0000000000001000, /* ib_mad OPA MAD support */
RDMA_MGMT_MASK           = 0x00000000000fff00,

RDMA_ADDR_IB             = 0x0000000000100000, /* Port does IB AH, PR, Pkey */
RDMA_ADDR_IBoE           = 0x0000000000200000, /* Port does IBoE AH, PR, Pkey */
/* Do we need iWarp (TCP) here? */
RDMA_ADDR_IB_MASK        = 0x000000000ff00000,


RDMA_SEPARATE_READ_SGE   = 0x0000000010000000,
RDMA_QUIRKS_MASK         = 0x000000fff0000000


> 
> > > We can see how this might work in future, lets say OPAv2 *requires* the
> > > 32 bit LID, for that case cap_ib_address = 0 cap_opa_address = 1. If
> > > we don't update IPoIB and it uses the tests from above then it
> > > immediately, and correctly, stops running on those OPAv2 devices.
> > > 
> > > Once patched to support cap_op_address then it will begin working
> > > again. That seems very sane..
> > 
> > It is very sane from an implementation standpoint, but from the larger
> > interoperability standpoint, you need that spec to be extended to the
> > new fabric simultaneously.
> 
> I liked the OPAv2 hypothetical because it doesn't actually touch the
> IPoIB spec. IPoIB spec has little to say about LIDs or LRHs it works
> entirely at the GID/MGID/GRH level.

Agreed.

Ira

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/