diff mbox

[v1,net-next,1/2] bonding: Expand speed type bits of the AD Port Key

Message ID 1415603801-21285-2-git-send-email-Jianhua.Xie@freescale.com
State Changes Requested, archived
Delegated to: David Miller
Headers show

Commit Message

Jianhua Xie Nov. 10, 2014, 7:16 a.m. UTC 
From: Jianhua Xie <Jianhua.Xie@freescale.com>

Port Key was determined as 16 bits according to the link speed,
duplex and user key (which is yet not supported), in which key
speed was 5 bits for 1Mbps/10Mbps/100Mbps/1Gbps/10Gbps as below:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Port key :|	User key	| Speed		|	Duplex|
--------------------------------------------------------------
16			6		1		0
This patch is expanding speed type from 5 bits to 9 bits for other
speed 2.5Gbps/20Gbps/40Gbps/56Gbps and shrinking user key from 10
bits to 6 bits.  New Port Key looks like below:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Port key :|	User key	| Speed		|	Duplex|
--------------------------------------------------------------
16			10		1		0

CC: Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@gmail.com>
CC: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@gmail.com>
CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>
CC: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

Signed-off-by: Jianhua Xie <jianhua.xie@freescale.com>
---
 drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Comments

David Miller Nov. 11, 2014, 6:53 p.m. UTC | #1 
From: Xie Jianhua <Jianhua.Xie@freescale.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:16:40 +0800

> From: Jianhua Xie <Jianhua.Xie@freescale.com>
> 
> Port Key was determined as 16 bits according to the link speed,
> duplex and user key (which is yet not supported), in which key
> speed was 5 bits for 1Mbps/10Mbps/100Mbps/1Gbps/10Gbps as below:
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Port key :|	User key	| Speed		|	Duplex|
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> 16			6		1		0
> This patch is expanding speed type from 5 bits to 9 bits for other
> speed 2.5Gbps/20Gbps/40Gbps/56Gbps and shrinking user key from 10
> bits to 6 bits.  New Port Key looks like below:
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Port key :|	User key	| Speed		|	Duplex|
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> 16			10		1		0
> 
> CC: Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@gmail.com>
> CC: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@gmail.com>
> CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>
> CC: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jianhua Xie <jianhua.xie@freescale.com>

Do we determine the layout of this value all ourselves?

If not, then is it exported to anything user-visible that we
might be breaking?

If it is private, it makes no sense to use a bitmask for the speed.
We should instead change the field to be some numerically increasing
value.

Otherwise we'll run out of bits again and keep having to adjust the
field layout more often than we really need to.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Jay Vosburgh Nov. 11, 2014, 7:47 p.m. UTC | #2 
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:

>From: Xie Jianhua <Jianhua.Xie@freescale.com>
>Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:16:40 +0800
>
>> From: Jianhua Xie <Jianhua.Xie@freescale.com>
>> 
>> Port Key was determined as 16 bits according to the link speed,
>> duplex and user key (which is yet not supported), in which key
>> speed was 5 bits for 1Mbps/10Mbps/100Mbps/1Gbps/10Gbps as below:
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> Port key :|	User key	| Speed		|	Duplex|
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> 16			6		1		0
>> This patch is expanding speed type from 5 bits to 9 bits for other
>> speed 2.5Gbps/20Gbps/40Gbps/56Gbps and shrinking user key from 10
>> bits to 6 bits.  New Port Key looks like below:
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> Port key :|	User key	| Speed		|	Duplex|
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> 16			10		1		0
>> 
>> CC: Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@gmail.com>
>> CC: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@gmail.com>
>> CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>
>> CC: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Jianhua Xie <jianhua.xie@freescale.com>
>
>Do we determine the layout of this value all ourselves?

	Yes, we do.  The precise format of the port key is not defined
by the standard; IEEE 802.1AX 5.3.5, "Capability identification":

"A given Key value is meaningful only in the context of the System that
allocates it; there is no global significance to Key values."

	and

"When a System assigns an operational Key value to a set of ports, it
signifies that, in the absence of other constraints, the current
operational state of the set of ports allows any subset of that set of
ports (including the entire set) to be aggregated together from the
perspective of the System making the assignment."

	So, basically, it's a magic cookie that indicates that all ports
on a particular system with the same key value are suitable to be
aggregated together.

>If not, then is it exported to anything user-visible that we
>might be breaking?

	The key values are not user-visible, and the "user" settable
portion of the key has never been implemented.

>If it is private, it makes no sense to use a bitmask for the speed.
>We should instead change the field to be some numerically increasing
>value.
>
>Otherwise we'll run out of bits again and keep having to adjust the
>field layout more often than we really need to.

	Agreed.

	Also note that there are some internal dependencies within
bonding on the format; in particular the duplex bit in the key is used
to determine if a port is LACP-capable, and that functionality needs to
be preserved.

	-J

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@canonical.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Jianhua Xie Nov. 12, 2014, 9:53 a.m. UTC | #3 
Thanks you two for the valuable comments.

If my understanding is right,  it is encouraged to use a counter
rather than a bitmask for the speed field, right?

if yes, how many bits are better to use for current speed and
future speed (like 100Gbps/400Gbps and etc.)?  I am not sure
that 5 bits are enough (2**5=32) or not. And I am clear to keep
"the duplex bit in the key " in my mind.

if not, what's your recommendation please?

Thanks & Best Regards,
Jianhua

在 2014年11月12日 03:47, Jay Vosburgh 写道:
> David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>
>> From: Xie Jianhua <Jianhua.Xie@freescale.com>
>> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:16:40 +0800
>>
>>> From: Jianhua Xie <Jianhua.Xie@freescale.com>
>>>
>>> Port Key was determined as 16 bits according to the link speed,
>>> duplex and user key (which is yet not supported), in which key
>>> speed was 5 bits for 1Mbps/10Mbps/100Mbps/1Gbps/10Gbps as below:
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Port key :|	User key	| Speed		|	Duplex|
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 16			6		1		0
>>> This patch is expanding speed type from 5 bits to 9 bits for other
>>> speed 2.5Gbps/20Gbps/40Gbps/56Gbps and shrinking user key from 10
>>> bits to 6 bits.  New Port Key looks like below:
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Port key :|	User key	| Speed		|	Duplex|
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 16			10		1		0
>>>
>> Do we determine the layout of this value all ourselves?
> 	Yes, we do.  The precise format of the port key is not defined
> by the standard; IEEE 802.1AX 5.3.5, "Capability identification":
>
> "A given Key value is meaningful only in the context of the System that
> allocates it; there is no global significance to Key values."
>
> 	and
>
> "When a System assigns an operational Key value to a set of ports, it
> signifies that, in the absence of other constraints, the current
> operational state of the set of ports allows any subset of that set of
> ports (including the entire set) to be aggregated together from the
> perspective of the System making the assignment."
>
> 	So, basically, it's a magic cookie that indicates that all ports
> on a particular system with the same key value are suitable to be
> aggregated together.
>
>> If not, then is it exported to anything user-visible that we
>> might be breaking?
> 	The key values are not user-visible, and the "user" settable
> portion of the key has never been implemented.
>
>> If it is private, it makes no sense to use a bitmask for the speed.
>> We should instead change the field to be some numerically increasing
>> value.
>>
>> Otherwise we'll run out of bits again and keep having to adjust the
>> field layout more often than we really need to.
> 	Agreed.
>
> 	Also note that there are some internal dependencies within
> bonding on the format; in particular the duplex bit in the key is used
> to determine if a port is LACP-capable, and that functionality needs to
> be preserved.
>
> 	-J
>
> ---
> 	-Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@canonical.com

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Veaceslav Falico Nov. 12, 2014, 11:20 a.m. UTC | #4 
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 05:53:41PM +0800, Jianhua Xie wrote:
>Thanks you two for the valuable comments.
>
>If my understanding is right,  it is encouraged to use a counter
>rather than a bitmask for the speed field, right?
>
>if yes, how many bits are better to use for current speed and
>future speed (like 100Gbps/400Gbps and etc.)?  I am not sure
>that 5 bits are enough (2**5=32) or not. And I am clear to keep
>"the duplex bit in the key " in my mind.
>
>if not, what's your recommendation please?

As it's visible to bonding only, I guess a simple enum should do the trick.
No need to invent something special, and it'll fit nicely with other enums
from AD.

>
>Thanks & Best Regards,
>Jianhua
>
>在 2014年11月12日 03:47, Jay Vosburgh 写道:
>>David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>>
>>>From: Xie Jianhua <Jianhua.Xie@freescale.com>
>>>Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:16:40 +0800
>>>
>>>>From: Jianhua Xie <Jianhua.Xie@freescale.com>
>>>>
>>>>Port Key was determined as 16 bits according to the link speed,
>>>>duplex and user key (which is yet not supported), in which key
>>>>speed was 5 bits for 1Mbps/10Mbps/100Mbps/1Gbps/10Gbps as below:
>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>Port key :|	User key	| Speed		|	Duplex|
>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>16			6		1		0
>>>>This patch is expanding speed type from 5 bits to 9 bits for other
>>>>speed 2.5Gbps/20Gbps/40Gbps/56Gbps and shrinking user key from 10
>>>>bits to 6 bits.  New Port Key looks like below:
>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>Port key :|	User key	| Speed		|	Duplex|
>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>16			10		1		0
>>>>
>>>Do we determine the layout of this value all ourselves?
>>	Yes, we do.  The precise format of the port key is not defined
>>by the standard; IEEE 802.1AX 5.3.5, "Capability identification":
>>
>>"A given Key value is meaningful only in the context of the System that
>>allocates it; there is no global significance to Key values."
>>
>>	and
>>
>>"When a System assigns an operational Key value to a set of ports, it
>>signifies that, in the absence of other constraints, the current
>>operational state of the set of ports allows any subset of that set of
>>ports (including the entire set) to be aggregated together from the
>>perspective of the System making the assignment."
>>
>>	So, basically, it's a magic cookie that indicates that all ports
>>on a particular system with the same key value are suitable to be
>>aggregated together.
>>
>>>If not, then is it exported to anything user-visible that we
>>>might be breaking?
>>	The key values are not user-visible, and the "user" settable
>>portion of the key has never been implemented.
>>
>>>If it is private, it makes no sense to use a bitmask for the speed.
>>>We should instead change the field to be some numerically increasing
>>>value.
>>>
>>>Otherwise we'll run out of bits again and keep having to adjust the
>>>field layout more often than we really need to.
>>	Agreed.
>>
>>	Also note that there are some internal dependencies within
>>bonding on the format; in particular the duplex bit in the key is used
>>to determine if a port is LACP-capable, and that functionality needs to
>>be preserved.
>>
>>	-J
>>
>>---
>>	-Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@canonical.com
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
David Miller Nov. 12, 2014, 5:43 p.m. UTC | #5 
Please do not top-post.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Jianhua Xie Nov. 16, 2014, 8:45 a.m. UTC | #6 
在 2014年11月12日 19:20, Veaceslav Falico 写道:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 05:53:41PM +0800, Jianhua Xie wrote:
>> Thanks you two for the valuable comments.
>>
>> If my understanding is right,  it is encouraged to use a counter
>> rather than a bitmask for the speed field, right?
>>
>> if yes, how many bits are better to use for current speed and
>> future speed (like 100Gbps/400Gbps and etc.)?  I am not sure
>> that 5 bits are enough (2**5=32) or not. And I am clear to keep
>> "the duplex bit in the key " in my mind.
>>
>> if not, what's your recommendation please?
>
> As it's visible to bonding only, I guess a simple enum should do the 
> trick.
> No need to invent something special, and it'll fit nicely with other 
> enums
> from AD.
Thanks comments from Jay Vosburgh and Veaceslav Falico.  However, my
method can also work, and also compatible with current bonding driver.
But Veaceslav Falico's method is better than mine.  I am glad to take his
advice. I will use an enum to instead of AD_LINK_SPEED_BITMASK micros
which are based on bitmask.

I also thank Miller for the kindly reminder on "please don't top-post".

Thank & Best Regards,
Jianhua
>
>>
>> Thanks & Best Regards,
>> Jianhua
>>
>> 在 2014年11月12日 03:47, Jay Vosburgh 写道:
>>> David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Xie Jianhua <Jianhua.Xie@freescale.com>
>>>> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:16:40 +0800
>>>>
>>>>> From: Jianhua Xie <Jianhua.Xie@freescale.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Port Key was determined as 16 bits according to the link speed,
>>>>> duplex and user key (which is yet not supported), in which key
>>>>> speed was 5 bits for 1Mbps/10Mbps/100Mbps/1Gbps/10Gbps as below:
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Port key :|    User key    | Speed        |    Duplex|
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 16            6        1        0
>>>>> This patch is expanding speed type from 5 bits to 9 bits for other
>>>>> speed 2.5Gbps/20Gbps/40Gbps/56Gbps and shrinking user key from 10
>>>>> bits to 6 bits.  New Port Key looks like below:
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Port key :|    User key    | Speed        |    Duplex|
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 16            10        1        0
>>>>>
>>>> Do we determine the layout of this value all ourselves?
>>>     Yes, we do.  The precise format of the port key is not defined
>>> by the standard; IEEE 802.1AX 5.3.5, "Capability identification":
>>>
>>> "A given Key value is meaningful only in the context of the System that
>>> allocates it; there is no global significance to Key values."
>>>
>>>     and
>>>
>>> "When a System assigns an operational Key value to a set of ports, it
>>> signifies that, in the absence of other constraints, the current
>>> operational state of the set of ports allows any subset of that set of
>>> ports (including the entire set) to be aggregated together from the
>>> perspective of the System making the assignment."
>>>
>>>     So, basically, it's a magic cookie that indicates that all ports
>>> on a particular system with the same key value are suitable to be
>>> aggregated together.
>>>
>>>> If not, then is it exported to anything user-visible that we
>>>> might be breaking?
>>>     The key values are not user-visible, and the "user" settable
>>> portion of the key has never been implemented.
>>>
>>>> If it is private, it makes no sense to use a bitmask for the speed.
>>>> We should instead change the field to be some numerically increasing
>>>> value.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise we'll run out of bits again and keep having to adjust the
>>>> field layout more often than we really need to.
>>>     Agreed.
>>>
>>>     Also note that there are some internal dependencies within
>>> bonding on the format; in particular the duplex bit in the key is used
>>> to determine if a port is LACP-capable, and that functionality needs to
>>> be preserved.
>>>
>>>     -J
>>>
>>> ---
>>>     -Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@canonical.com
>>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c
index 2110215f..8e5ab5c 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c
@@ -77,11 +77,11 @@ 
  * --------------------------------------------------------------
  * Port key :	| User key	| Speed		| Duplex	|
  * --------------------------------------------------------------
- * 16		  6		  1		  0
+ * 16			10		1		0
  */
 #define  AD_DUPLEX_KEY_BITS    0x1
-#define  AD_SPEED_KEY_BITS     0x3E
-#define  AD_USER_KEY_BITS      0xFFC0
+#define  AD_SPEED_KEY_BITS     0x3FE
+#define  AD_USER_KEY_BITS      0xFC00
 
 #define     AD_LINK_SPEED_BITMASK_1MBPS       0x1
 #define     AD_LINK_SPEED_BITMASK_10MBPS      0x2