Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 0/3] Multi-CPU DSA support

[Marek Behun]

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 00:05:51 +0200
Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 23:50, Marek Behun <marek.behun@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 23:22:45 +0200
> > Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >  
> >> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 21:30, Marek Behun <marek.behun@xxxxxx> wrote:  
> >> > On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:46:11 +0200
> >> > Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >    
> >> >> I agree. Unless you only have a few really wideband flows, a LAG will
> >> >> typically do a great job with balancing. This will happen without the
> >> >> user having to do any configuration at all. It would also perform well
> >> >> in "router-on-a-stick"-setups where the incoming and outgoing port is
> >> >> the same.    
> >> >
> >> > TLDR: The problem with LAGs how they are currently implemented is that
> >> > for Turris Omnia, basically in 1/16 of configurations the traffic would
> >> > go via one CPU port anyway.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > One potencial problem that I see with using LAGs for aggregating CPU
> >> > ports on mv88e6xxx is how these switches determine the port for a
> >> > packet: only the src and dst MAC address is used for the hash that
> >> > chooses the port.
> >> >
> >> > The most common scenario for Turris Omnia, for example, where we have 2
> >> > CPU ports and 5 user ports, is that into these 5 user ports the user
> >> > plugs 5 simple devices (no switches, so only one peer MAC address for
> >> > port). So we have only 5 pairs of src + dst MAC addresses. If we simply
> >> > fill the LAG table as it is done now, then there is 2 * 0.5^5 = 1/16
> >> > chance that all packets would go through one CPU port.
> >> >
> >> > In order to have real load balancing in this scenario, we would either
> >> > have to recompute the LAG mask table depending on the MAC addresses, or
> >> > rewrite the LAG mask table somewhat randomly periodically. (This could
> >> > be in theory offloaded onto the Z80 internal CPU for some of the
> >> > switches of the mv88e6xxx family, but not for Omnia.)    
> >> 
> >> I thought that the option to associate each port netdev with a DSA
> >> master would only be used on transmit. Are you saying that there is a
> >> way to configure an mv88e6xxx chip to steer packets to different CPU
> >> ports depending on the incoming port?
> >>
> >> The reason that the traffic is directed towards the CPU is that some
> >> kind of entry in the ATU says so, and the destination of that entry will
> >> either be a port vector or a LAG. Of those two, only the LAG will offer
> >> any kind of balancing. What am I missing?  
> >
> > Via port vectors you can "load balance" by ports only, i.e. input port X  
> > -> trasmit via CPU port Y.  
> 
> How is this done? In a case where there is no bridging between the
> ports, then I understand. Each port could have its own FID. But if you
> have this setup...
> 
>    br0    wan
>    / \
> lan0 lan1
> 
> lan0 and lan1 would use the same FID. So how could you say that frames
> from lan0 should go to cpu0 and frames from lan1 should go to cpu1 if
> the DA is the same? What would be the content of the ATU in a setup
> like that?
> 
> > When using LAGs, you are load balancing via hash(src MAC | dst mac)
> > only. This is better in some ways. But what I am saying is that if the
> > LAG mask table is static, as it is now implemented in mv88e6xxx code,
> > then for many scenarios there is a big probability of no load balancing
> > at all. For Turris Omnia for example there is 6.25% probability that
> > the switch chip will send all traffic to the CPU via one CPU port.
> > This is because the switch chooses the LAG port only from the hash of
> > dst+src MAC address. (By the 1/16 = 6.25% probability I mean that for
> > cca 1 in 16 customers, the switch would only use one port when sending
> > data to the CPU).
> >
> > The round robin solution here is therefore better in this case.  
> 
> I agree that it would be better in that case. I just do not get how you
> get the switch to do it for you.

I thought that this is configured in the mv88e6xxx_port_vlan() function.
For each port, you specify via which ports data can egress.
So for ports 0, 2, 4 you can enable CPU port 0, and for ports 1 and 3
CPU port 1.

Am I wrong? I confess that I did not understand this into the most fine
details, so it is entirely possible that I am missing something
important and am completely wrong. Maybe this cannot be done.

Marek