Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 07/10] net: dsa: Pass MST state changes to driver

[Tobias Waldekranz]

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 02:22, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 12:59:54AM +0100, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 01:08, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 11:46:45PM +0100, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 18:18, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 05:05:35PM +0100, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 12:35, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 09:54:34AM +0100, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> +	if (!dsa_port_can_configure_learning(dp) || dp->learning) {
>> >> >> >> >> +		switch (state->state) {
>> >> >> >> >> +		case BR_STATE_DISABLED:
>> >> >> >> >> +		case BR_STATE_BLOCKING:
>> >> >> >> >> +		case BR_STATE_LISTENING:
>> >> >> >> >> +			/* Ideally we would only fast age entries
>> >> >> >> >> +			 * belonging to VLANs controlled by this
>> >> >> >> >> +			 * MST.
>> >> >> >> >> +			 */
>> >> >> >> >> +			dsa_port_fast_age(dp);
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Does mv88e6xxx support this? If it does, you might just as well
>> >> >> >> > introduce another variant of ds->ops->port_fast_age() for an msti.
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> You can limit ATU operations to a particular FID. So the way I see it we
>> >> >> >> could either have:
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> int (*port_vlan_fast_age)(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port, u16 vid)
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> + Maybe more generic. You could imagine there being a way to trigger
>> >> >> >>   this operation from userspace for example.
>> >> >> >> - We would have to keep the VLAN<->MSTI mapping in the DSA layer in
>> >> >> >>   order to be able to do the fan-out in dsa_port_set_mst_state.
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> or:
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> int (*port_msti_fast_age)(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port, u16 msti)
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> + Let's the mapping be an internal affair in the driver.
>> >> >> >> - Perhaps, less generically useful.
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> Which one do you prefer? Or is there a hidden third option? :)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Yes, I was thinking of "port_msti_fast_age". I don't see a cheap way of
>> >> >> > keeping VLAN to MSTI associations in the DSA layer. Only if we could
>> >> >> > retrieve this mapping from the bridge layer - maybe with something
>> >> >> > analogous to br_vlan_get_info(), but br_mst_get_info(), and this gets
>> >> >> > passed a VLAN_N_VID sized bitmap, which the bridge populates with ones
>> >> >> > and zeroes.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> That can easily be done. Given that, should we go for port_vlan_fast_age
>> >> >> instead? port_msti_fast_age feels like an awkward interface, since I
>> >> >> don't think there is any hardware out there that can actually perform
>> >> >> that operation without internally fanning it out over all affected VIDs
>> >> >> (or FIDs in the case of mv88e6xxx).
>> >> >
>> >> > Yup, yup. My previous email was all over the place with regard to the
>> >> > available options, because I wrote it in multiple phases so it wasn't
>> >> > chronologically ordered top-to-bottom. But port_vlan_fast_age() makes
>> >> > the most sense if you can implement br_mst_get_info(). Same goes for
>> >> > dsa_port_notify_bridge_fdb_flush().
>> >> >
>> >> >> > The reason why I asked for this is because I'm not sure of the
>> >> >> > implications of flushing the entire FDB of the port for a single MSTP
>> >> >> > state change. It would trigger temporary useless flooding in other MSTIs
>> >> >> > at the very least. There isn't any backwards compatibility concern to
>> >> >> > speak of, so we can at least try from the beginning to limit the
>> >> >> > flushing to the required VLANs.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Aside from the performance implications of flows being temporarily
>> >> >> flooded I don't think there are any.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> I suppose if you've disabled flooding of unknown unicast on that port,
>> >> >> you would loose the flow until you see some return traffic (or when one
>> >> >> side gives up and ARPs). While somewhat esoteric, it would be nice to
>> >> >> handle this case if the hardware supports it.
>> >> >
>> >> > If by "handle this case" you mean "flush only the affected VLANs", then
>> >> > yes, I fully agree.
>> >> >
>> >> >> > What I didn't think about, and will be a problem, is
>> >> >> > dsa_port_notify_bridge_fdb_flush() - we don't know the vid to flush.
>> >> >> > The easy way out here would be to export dsa_port_notify_bridge_fdb_flush(),
>> >> >> > add a "vid" argument to it, and let drivers call it. Thoughts?
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> To me, this seems to be another argument in favor of
>> >> >> port_vlan_fast_age. That way you would know the VIDs being flushed at
>> >> >> the DSA layer, and driver writers needn't concern themselves with having
>> >> >> to remember to generate the proper notifications back to the bridge.
>> >> >
>> >> > See above.
>> >> >
>> >> >> > Alternatively, if you think that cross-flushing FDBs of multiple MSTIs
>> >> >> > isn't a real problem, I suppose we could keep the "port_fast_age" method.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> What about falling back to it if the driver doesn't support per-VLAN
>> >> >> flushing? Flushing all entries will work in most cases, at the cost of
>> >> >> some temporary flooding. Seems more useful than refusing the offload
>> >> >> completely.
>> >> >
>> >> > So here's what I don't understand. Do you expect a driver other than
>> >> > mv88e6xxx to do something remotely reasonable under a bridge with MSTP
>> >> > enabled? The idea being to handle gracefully the case where a port is
>> >> > BLOCKING in an MSTI but FORWARDING in another. Because if not, let's
>> >> > just outright not offload that kind of bridge, and only concern
>> >> > ourselves with what MST-capable drivers can do.
>> >> 
>> >> I think you're right. I was trying to make it easier for other driver
>> >> writers, but it will just be more confusing and error prone.
>> >> 
>> >> Alright, so v3 will have something like this:
>> >> 
>> >> bool dsa_port_can_offload_mst(struct dsa_port *dp)
>> >> {
>> >> 	return ds->ops->vlan_msti_set &&
>> >> 		ds->ops->port_mst_state_set &&
>> >> 		ds->ops->port_vlan_fast_age &&
>> >> 		dsa_port_can_configure_learning(dp);
>> >> }
>> >> 
>> >> If this returns false, we have two options:
>> >> 
>> >> 1. Return -EOPNOTSUPP, which the bridge will be unable to discriminate
>> >>    from a non-switchdev port saying "I have no idea what you're talking
>> >>    about". I.e. the bridge will happily apply the config, but the
>> >>    hardware won't match. I don't like this, but it lines up with most
>> >>    other stuff.
>> >> 
>> >> 2. Return a hard error, e.g. -EINVAL/-ENOSYS. This will keep the bridge
>> >>    in sync with the hardware and also gives some feedback to the
>> >>    user. This seems like the better approach to me, but it is a new kind
>> >>    of paradigm.
>> >> 
>> >> What do you think?
>> >
>> > Wait, what? It matters a lot where you place the call to
>> > dsa_port_can_offload_mst(), too. You don't have to propagate a hard
>> > error code, either, at least if you make dsa_port_bridge_join() return
>> > -EOPNOTSUPP prior to calling switchdev_bridge_port_offload(), no?
>> > DSA transforms this error code into 0, and dsa_port_offloads_bridge*()
>> > starts returning false, which makes us ignore all MSTP related switchdev
>> > notifiers.
>> 
>> Right. So we also need:
>> 
>> 1. A br_mst_enabled() that we can call from dsa_port_bridge_join to
>>    validate the initial state.
>> 
>> 2. A switchdev attr event sent out when enabling/disabling MST on the
>>    bridge, so that we can NAK the change.
>
> So far, so good. This, to me, is analogous to the way in which a hypothetical
> VLAN-unaware switchdev driver wouldn't deny VLAN additions or removals,
> but it would only accept a VLAN-unaware bridge, and refuse to transition
> into a VLAN-aware one. So even though we wouldn't deny the bridge from
> keeping state that would have effect when VLAN awareness is on, we
> would just deny the bridge from making that state active. Same with MSTP
> awareness in my view - don't deny MSTI migrations, per-MSTI port state
> changes etc, just the ability to turn on MSTP awareness.
>
> In practice I have only seen things done the other way around - the
> dpaa2-switch driver refuses VLAN-unaware bridges, so it doesn't need to
> handle ignoring VLAN switchdev notifiers - a slightly simpler task.
> Also, the concept of unoffloaded uppers seems to be pretty unique to DSA
> so far, among switchdev drivers.
>
>> > The important part will be to make sure that MSTP is enabled for this
>> > bridge from the get-go (that being the only case in which we can offload
>> > an MSTP aware bridge), and refusing to offload dynamic changes to its
>> > MSTP state. I didn't re-check now, but I think I remember there being
>> 
>> Hang on though. Won't that mean that this sequence...
>> 
>> ip link add dev br0 type bridge \
>>     vlan_filtering 1 vlan_default_pvid 0 mst_enable 1
>> ip link set dev swp1 master br0
>> 
>> ...will work, but offloading will be disabled on swp0; whereas this
>> sequence...
>> 
>> ip link add dev br0 type bridge \
>>     vlan_filtering 1 vlan_default_pvid 0
>> ip link set dev swp1 master br0
>> ip link set dev br0 type bridge mst_enable 1
>> 
>> ...will fail on the final command? Even though they are logically
>> equivalent? But maybe that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
>
> Well, they could be made equivalent for academic purposes, if you're
> prepared to dynamically unoffload a bridge port from the MST awareness
> notifier, be my guest, I never tried it... I suppose we could try it, in
> theory it's just a call to dsa_port_pre_bridge_leave() +
> dsa_port_bridge_leave() after all. But it's effort to be spent in work
> and testing, and I'm not sure whether anyone will see the benefit or use
> case. During initial bridge join, at least it's an established code
> path, the drivers which don't implement ds->ops->port_bridge_join() have
> exercised it. Alvin Šipraga has fixed a few bugs related to rtl8365mb
> and this after some recent rework, it should work just fine now.

I completely agree. Just wanted to make sure that I had understood it
correctly. Thanks.

>> > limitations even in the software bridge related to dynamic MSTP mode
>> > changes anyway - there had to not be any port VLANs, which IIUC means
>> > that you actually need to _delete_ the port PVIDs which are automatically
>> > created before you could change the MSTP mode.
>> 
>> There are some ergonomic issues there, yes. I might look at it again and
>> see if there is some reasonable way of allowing the mode to be changed
>> even when VLANs are present.
>> 
>> > This is the model, what's wrong with it? I said "don't offload the
>> > bridge", not "don't offload specific MSTP operations".
>> 
>> Nothing is wrong, I just couldn't see the whole picture.
>> 
>> This is the way.