mbox series

[RFC,net-next,0/2] Port-based priority on DSA switches using tc-matchall

Message ID 20210113154139.1803705-1-olteanv@gmail.com
Headers show
Series Port-based priority on DSA switches using tc-matchall | expand

Message

Vladimir Oltean Jan. 13, 2021, 3:41 p.m. UTC
From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>

This is a proposal for configuring the port-based default priority on
switch ports using tc-matchall and skbedit priority. Comments welcome.

Vladimir Oltean (2):
  net: dsa: allow setting port-based QoS priority using tc matchall
    skbedit
  net: dsa: felix: offload port priority

 drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c | 15 +++++++
 include/net/dsa.h              |  8 ++++
 net/dsa/slave.c                | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 95 insertions(+)

Comments

Andrew Lunn Jan. 13, 2021, 11:36 p.m. UTC | #1
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 05:41:39PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>

> 

> Even though we should really share the implementation with the ocelot

> switchdev driver, that one needs a little bit of rework first, since its

> struct ocelot_port_tc only supports one tc matchall action at a time,

> which at the moment is used for port policers. Whereas DSA keeps a list

> of port-based actions in struct dsa_slave_priv::mall_tc_list, so it is

> much more easily extensible. It is too tempting to add the implementation

> for the port priority directly in Felix at the moment, which is what we

> do.

> 

> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>

> ---

>  drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c | 15 +++++++++++++++

>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)

> 

> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c b/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c

> index 768a74dc462a..5cc42c3aaf0d 100644

> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c

> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c

> @@ -739,6 +739,20 @@ static void felix_port_policer_del(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port)

>  	ocelot_port_policer_del(ocelot, port);

>  }

>  

> +static int felix_port_priority_set(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,

> +				   struct dsa_mall_skbedit_tc_entry *skbedit)

> +{

> +	struct ocelot *ocelot = ds->priv;

> +

> +	ocelot_rmw_gix(ocelot,

> +		       ANA_PORT_QOS_CFG_QOS_DEFAULT_VAL(skbedit->priority),


No range check? Seems like -ERANGE or similar would help avoid
surprises when somebody asks for an unsupported priority and it gets
masked to something much lower.

       Andrew
Florian Fainelli Jan. 13, 2021, 11:37 p.m. UTC | #2
On 1/13/21 3:36 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 05:41:39PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
>>
>> Even though we should really share the implementation with the ocelot
>> switchdev driver, that one needs a little bit of rework first, since its
>> struct ocelot_port_tc only supports one tc matchall action at a time,
>> which at the moment is used for port policers. Whereas DSA keeps a list
>> of port-based actions in struct dsa_slave_priv::mall_tc_list, so it is
>> much more easily extensible. It is too tempting to add the implementation
>> for the port priority directly in Felix at the moment, which is what we
>> do.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c b/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c
>> index 768a74dc462a..5cc42c3aaf0d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c
>> @@ -739,6 +739,20 @@ static void felix_port_policer_del(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port)
>>  	ocelot_port_policer_del(ocelot, port);
>>  }
>>  
>> +static int felix_port_priority_set(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
>> +				   struct dsa_mall_skbedit_tc_entry *skbedit)
>> +{
>> +	struct ocelot *ocelot = ds->priv;
>> +
>> +	ocelot_rmw_gix(ocelot,
>> +		       ANA_PORT_QOS_CFG_QOS_DEFAULT_VAL(skbedit->priority),
> 
> No range check? Seems like -ERANGE or similar would help avoid
> surprises when somebody asks for an unsupported priority and it gets
> masked to something much lower.

You are passing the whole dsa_mall_skbedit_tc_entry  structure here,
only to look up priority, would it make sense for now to pass
skbedit->priority as a parameter which would be matching the function
name and what it is dealing with?
Vladimir Oltean Jan. 14, 2021, 12:57 a.m. UTC | #3
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 03:37:49PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> You are passing the whole dsa_mall_skbedit_tc_entry  structure here,

> only to look up priority, would it make sense for now to pass

> skbedit->priority as a parameter which would be matching the function

> name and what it is dealing with?


Actually I am passing a pointer to it, which should be more or less
equal in size to an integer. But I can pass just the priority, sure.