Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v4 10/15] net/mlx5: Add support for devlink reload action fw activate

[Moshe Shemesh]

On 9/15/2020 4:37 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 02:44:02PM CEST, moshe@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > On 9/14/2020 4:54 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > > Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 08:07:57AM CEST, moshe@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >
> > > [..]
> > >
> > > > +static void mlx5_fw_reset_complete_reload(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct mlx5_fw_reset *fw_reset = dev->priv.fw_reset;
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* if this is the driver that initiated the fw reset, devlink completed the reload */
> > > > +	if (test_bit(MLX5_FW_RESET_FLAGS_PENDING_COMP, &fw_reset->reset_flags)) {
> > > > +		complete(&fw_reset->done);
> > > > +	} else {
> > > > +		mlx5_load_one(dev, false);
> > > > +		devlink_reload_implicit_actions_performed(priv_to_devlink(dev),
> > > > +							  DEVLINK_RELOAD_ACTION_LIMIT_LEVEL_NONE,
> > > > +							  BIT(DEVLINK_RELOAD_ACTION_DRIVER_REINIT) |
> > > > +							  BIT(DEVLINK_RELOAD_ACTION_FW_ACTIVATE));
> > > Hmm, who originated the reset? Devlink_reload of the same devlink
> > > instance?
> >
> > Not the same devlink instance for sure. I defer it by the flag above
> > MLX5_FW_RESET_FLAG_PENDING_COMP. If the flag set, I set complete to the
> > reload_down() waiting for it.
> Hmm, thinking about the stats, as
> devlink_reload_implicit_actions_performed() is called only in case
> another instance does the reload, shouldn't it be a separate set of
> stats? I think that the user would like to distinguish local and remote
> reload, don't you think?

Possible, it will double the counters, but it will give more info.

So actually, if devlink_reload is not supported by driver, I should hold 
and show only the remote stats or all stats always ?

How such remote counter should look like ? something like 
remote_fw_activate  while the local is just fw_activate ?

> > > [..]