Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 01/13] devlink: Add reload level option to devlink reload command | From | Moshe Shemesh <> | Date | Sun, 9 Aug 2020 16:21:29 +0300 |
| |
On 8/6/2020 9:25 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 13:02:58 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 10:39:46PM CEST, kuba@kernel.org wrote: >>> AFAIU the per-driver default is needed because we went too low >>> level with what the action constitutes. We need maintain the higher >>> level actions. >>> >>> The user clearly did not care if FW was reset during devlink reload >>> before this set, so what has changed? The objective user has is to >> Well for mlxsw, the user is used to this flow: >> devlink dev flash - flash new fw >> devlink dev reload - new fw is activated and reset and driver instances >> are re-created. > Ugh, if the current behavior already implies fw-activation for some > drivers then the default has to probably be "do all the things" :S
Okay, so devlink reload default for mlx5 will include also fw-activate to align with mlxsw default.
Meaning drivers that supports fw-activate will add it to the default.
The flow of devlink reload default on mlx5 will be:
If there is FW image pending and live patch is suitable to apply, do live patch and driver re-initialization.
If there is FW image pending but live patch doesn't fit do fw-reset and driver-initialization.
If no FW image pending just do driver-initialization.
I still think I should on top of that add the level option to be selected by the user if he prefers a specific action, so the uAPI would be:
devlink dev reload [ netns { PID | NAME | ID } ] [ level { fw-live-patch | driver-reinit |fw-activate } ]
But I am still missing something: fw-activate implies that it will activate a new FW image stored on flash, pending activation. What if the user wants to reset and reload the FW if no new FW pending ? Should we add --force option to fw-activate level ?
>>> activate their config / FW / move to different net ns. >>> >>> Reloading the driver or resetting FW is a low level detail which >>> achieves different things for different implementations. So it's >>> not a suitable abstraction -> IOW we need the driver default. >> I'm confused. So you think we need the driver default? > No, I'm talking about the state of this patch set. _In this patchset_ > we need a driver default because of the unsuitable abstraction. > > Better design would not require it. > >>> The work flow for the user is: >>> >>> 0. download fw to /lib/firmware >>> 1. devlink flash $dev $fw >>> 2. if live activation is enabled >>> yes - devlink reload $dev $live-activate >>> no - report machine has to be drained for reboot >>> >>> fw-reset can't be $live-activate, because as Jake said fw-reset does >>> not activate the new image for Intel. So will we end up per-driver >>> defaults in the kernel space, and user space maintaining a mapping from >> Well, that is what what is Moshe's proposal. Per-driver kernel default.. >> I'm not sure what we are arguing about then :/ > The fact that if I do a pure "driver reload" it will active new > firmware for mlxsw but not for mlx5. In this patchset for mlx5 I need > driver reload fw-reset. And for Intel there is no suitable option. > >>> a driver to what a "level" of reset implies. >>> >>> I hope this makes things crystal clear. Please explain what problems >>> you're seeing and extensions you're expecting. A list of user scenarios >>> you foresee would be v. useful.
|  |