On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote:
> Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 09:57:09PM CET, alexander.du...@gmail.com wrote:
>>On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote:
>>> Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 06:56:35PM CET, alexander.du...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 8:58 AM, Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote:
>>>>> Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 05:49:49PM CET, alexander.du...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 8:11 AM, Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote:
>>>>>>> Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 04:56:48PM CET, alexander.du...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 1:51 AM, Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:33:56PM CET, kubak...@wp.pl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:14:10 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I can see it now :( I guess that the ship has sailed and we 
>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>> stuck with this ugly thing forever...
>>>>>>>>>>> Could you at least make some common code that is shared in between
>>>>>>>>>>> netvsc and virtio_net so this is handled in exacly the same way in 
>>>>>>>>>>> both?
>>>>>>>>>>IMHO netvsc is a vendor specific driver which made a mistake on what
>>>>>>>>>>behaviour it provides (or tried to align itself with Windows SR-IOV).
>>>>>>>>>>Let's not make a far, far more commonly deployed and important driver
>>>>>>>>>>(virtio) bug-compatible with netvsc.
>>>>>>>>> Yeah. netvsc solution is a dangerous precedent here and in my 
>>>>>>>>> opinition
>>>>>>>>> it was a huge mistake to merge it. I personally would vote to unmerge 
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> and make the solution based on team/bond.
>>>>>>>>>>To Jiri's initial comments, I feel the same way, in fact I've talked 
>>>>>>>>>>the NetworkManager guys to get auto-bonding based on MACs handled in
>>>>>>>>>>user space.  I think it may very well get done in next versions of NM,
>>>>>>>>>>but isn't done yet.  Stephen also raised the point that not everybody 
>>>>>>>>>>using NM.
>>>>>>>>> Can be done in NM, networkd or other network management tools.
>>>>>>>>> Even easier to do this in teamd and let them all benefit.
>>>>>>>>> Actually, I took a stab to implement this in teamd. Took me like an 
>>>>>>>>> hour
>>>>>>>>> and half.
>>>>>>>>> You can just run teamd with config option "kidnap" like this:
>>>>>>>>> # teamd/teamd -c '{"kidnap": true }'
>>>>>>>>> Whenever teamd sees another netdev to appear with the same mac as his,
>>>>>>>>> or whenever teamd sees another netdev to change mac to his,
>>>>>>>>> it enslaves it.
>>>>>>>>> Here's the patch (quick and dirty):
>>>>>>>>> Subject: [patch teamd] teamd: introduce kidnap feature
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <j...@mellanox.com>
>>>>>>>>So this doesn't really address the original problem we were trying to
>>>>>>>>solve. You asked earlier why the netdev name mattered and it mostly
>>>>>>>>has to do with configuration. Specifically what our patch is
>>>>>>>>attempting to resolve is the issue of how to allow a cloud provider to
>>>>>>>>upgrade their customer to SR-IOV support and live migration without
>>>>>>>>requiring them to reconfigure their guest. So the general idea with
>>>>>>>>our patch is to take a VM that is running with virtio_net only and
>>>>>>>>allow it to instead spawn a virtio_bypass master using the same netdev
>>>>>>>>name as the original virtio, and then have the virtio_net and VF come
>>>>>>>>up and be enslaved by the bypass interface. Doing it this way we can
>>>>>>>>allow for multi-vendor SR-IOV live migration support using a guest
>>>>>>>>that was originally configured for virtio only.
>>>>>>>>The problem with your solution is we already have teaming and bonding
>>>>>>>>as you said. There is already a write-up from Red Hat on how to do it
>>>>>>>>That is all well and good as long as you are willing to keep around
>>>>>>>>two VM images, one for virtio, and one for SR-IOV with live migration.
>>>>>>> You don't need 2 images. You need only one. The one with the team setup.
>>>>>>> That's it. If another netdev with the same mac appears, teamd will
>>>>>>> enslave it and run traffic on it. If not, ok, you'll go only through
>>>>>>> virtio_net.
>>>>>>Isn't that going to cause the routing table to get messed up when we
>>>>>>rearrange the netdevs? We don't want to have an significant disruption
>>>>>> in traffic when we are adding/removing the VF. It seems like we would
>>>>>>need to invalidate any entries that were configured for the virtio_net
>>>>>>and reestablish them on the new team interface. Part of the criteria
>>>>>>we have been working with is that we should be able to transition from
>>>>>>having a VF to not or vice versa without seeing any significant
>>>>>>disruption in the traffic.
>>>>> What? You have routes on the team netdev. virtio_net and VF are only
>>>>> slaves. What are you talking about? I don't get it :/
>>>>So lets walk though this by example. The general idea of the base case
>>>>for all this is somebody starting with virtio_net, we will call the
>>>>interface "ens1" for now. It comes up and is assigned a dhcp address
>>>>and everything works as expected. Now in order to get better
>>>>performance we want to add a VF "ens2", but we don't want a new IP
>>>>address. Now if I understand correctly what will happen is that when
>>>>"ens2" appears on the system teamd will then create a new team
>>>>interface "team0". Before teamd can enslave ens1 it has to down the
>>> No, you don't understand that correctly.
>>> There is always ens1 and team0. ens1 is a slave of team0. team0 is the
>>> interface to use, to set ip on etc.
>>> When ens2 appears, it gets enslaved to team0 as well.
>>>>interface if I understand things correctly. This means that we have to
>>>>disrupt network traffic in order for this to work.
>>>>To give you an idea of where we were before this became about trying
>>>>to do this in the team or bonding driver, we were debating a 2 netdev
>>>>model versus a 3 netdev model. I will call out the model and the
>>>>advantages/disadvantages of those below.
>>>>2 Netdev model, "ens1", enslaves "ens2".
>>>>- Requires dropping in-driver XDP in order to work (won't capture VF
>>>>traffic otherwise)
>>>>- VF takes performance hit for extra qdisc/Tx queue lock of virtio_net 
>>>>- If you ass-u-me (I haven't been a fan of this model if you can't
>>>>tell) that it is okay to rip out in-driver XDP from virtio_net, then
>>>>you could transition between base virtio, virtio w/ backup bit set.
>>>>- Works for netvsc because they limit their features (no in-driver
>>>>XDP) to guarantee this works.
>>>>3 Netdev model, "ens1", enslaves "ens1nbackup" and "ens2"
>>>>- Exposes 2 netdevs "ens1" and "ens1nbackup" when only virtio is present
>>>>- No extra qdisc or locking
>>>>- All virtio_net original functionality still present
>>>>- Not able to transition from virtio to virtio w/ backup without
>>>>disruption (requires hot-plug)
>>>>The way I see it the only way your team setup could work would be
>>>>something closer to the 3 netdev model. Basically we would be
>>>>requiring the user to always have the team0 present in order to make
>>>>certain that anything like XDP would be run on the team interface
>>>>instead of assuming that the virtio_net could run by itself. I will
>>>>add it as a third option here to compare to the other 2.
>>> Yes.
>>>>3 Netdev "team" model, "team0", enslaves "ens1" and "ens2"
>>>>- Requires guest to configure teamd
>>>>- Exposes "team0" and "ens1" when only virtio is present
>>>>- No extra qdisc or locking
>>>>- Doesn't require "backup" bit in virtio
>>>>>>Also how does this handle any static configuration? I am assuming that
>>>>>>everything here assumes the team will be brought up as soon as it is
>>>>>>seen and assigned a DHCP address.
>>>>> Again. You configure whatever you need on the team netdev.
>>>>Just so we are clear, are you then saying that the team0 interface
>>>>will always be present with this configuration? You had made it sound
>>> Of course.
>>>>like it would disappear if you didn't have at least 2 interfaces.
>>> Where did I make it sound like that? No.
>>I think it was a bit of misspeak/misread specifically I am thinking of:
>>  You don't need 2 images. You need only one. The one with the
>>  team setup. That's it. If another netdev with the same mac appears,
>>  teamd will enslave it and run traffic on it. If not, ok, you'll go only
>>  through virtio_net.
>>I read that as there being no team if the VF wasn't present since you
>>would still be going through team and then virtio_net otherwise.
> team netdev is always there.
>>>>>>The solution as you have proposed seems problematic at best. I don't
>>>>>>see how the team solution works without introducing some sort of
>>>>>>traffic disruption to either add/remove the VF and bring up/tear down
>>>>>>the team interface. At that point we might as well just give up on
>>>>>>this piece of live migration support entirely since the disruption was
>>>>>>what we were trying to avoid. We might as well just hotplug out the VF
>>>>>>and hotplug in a virtio at the same bus device and function number and
>>>>>>just let udev take care of renaming it for us. The idea was supposed
>>>>>>to be a seamless transition between the two interfaces.
>>>>> Alex. What you are trying to do in this patchset and what netvsc does it
>>>>> essentialy in-driver bonding. Same thing mechanism, rx_handler,
>>>>> everything. I don't really understand what are you talking about. With
>>>>> use of team you will get exactly the same behaviour.
>>>>So the goal of the "in-driver bonding" is to make the bonding as
>>>>non-intrusive as possible and require as little user intervention as
>>>>possible. I agree that much of the handling is the same, however the
>>>>control structure and requirements are significantly different. That
>>>>has been what I have been trying to explain. You keep wanting to use
>>>>the existing structures, but they don't really apply cleanly because
>>>>they push control for the interface up into the guest, and that
>>>>doesn't make much sense in the case of virtualization. What is
>>>>happening here is that we are exposing a bond that the guest should
>>>>have no control over, or at least as little as possible. In addition
>>>>making the user have to add additional configuration in the guest
>>>>means that there is that much more that can go wrong if they screw it
>>>>The other problem here is that the transition needs to be as seamless
>>>>as possible between just a standard virtio_net setup and this new
>>>>setup. With either the team or bonding setup you end up essentially
>>>>forcing the guest to have the bond/team always there even if they are
>>>>running only a single interface. Only if they "upgrade" the VM by
>>>>adding a VF then it finally gets to do anything.
>>> Yeah. There is certainly a dilemma. We have to choose between
>>> 1) weird and hackish in-driver semi-bonding that would be simple
>>>    for user.
>>> 2) the standard way that would be perhaps slighly more complicated
>>>    for user.
>>The problem is for us option 2 is quite a bit uglier. Basically it
>>means essentially telling all the distros and such that their cloud
>>images have to use team by default on all virtio_net interfaces. It
>>pretty much means we have to throw away this as a possible solution
>>since you are requiring guest changes that most customers/OS vendors
>>would ever accept.
>>At least with our solution it was the driver making use of the
>>functionality if a given feature bit was set. The teaming solution as
>>proposed doesn't even give us that option.
> I understand your motivation.
>>>>What this comes down to for us is the following requirements:
>>>>1. The name of the interface cannot change when going from virtio_net,
>>>>to virtio_net being bypassed using a VF. We cannot create an interface
>>>>on top of the interface, if anything we need to push the original
>>>>virtio_net out of the way so that the new team interface takes its
>>>>place in the configuration of the system. Otherwise a VM with VF w/
>>>>live migration will require a different configuration than one that
>>>>just runs virtio_net.
>>> Team driver netdev is still the same, no name changes.
>>Right. Basically we need to have the renaming occur so that any
>>existing config gets moved to the upper interface instead of having to
>>rely on configuration being adjusted for the team interface.
> The initial name of team netdevice is totally up to you.
>>>>2. We need some way to signal if this VM should be running in an
>>>>"upgraded" mode or not. We have been using the backup bit in
>>>>virtio_net to do that. If it isn't "upgraded" then we don't need the
>>>>team/bond and we can just run with virtio_net.
>>> I don't see why the team cannot be there always.
>>It is more the logistical nightmare. Part of the goal here was to work
>>with the cloud base images that are out there such as
>>https://alt.fedoraproject.org/cloud/. With just the kernel changes the
>>overhead for this stays fairly small and would be pulled in as just a
>>standard part of the kernel update process. The virtio bypass only
>>pops up if the backup bit is present. With the team solution it
>>requires that the base image use the team driver on virtio_net when it
>>sees one. I doubt the OSVs would want to do that just because SR-IOV
>>isn't that popular of a case.
> Again, I undertand your motivation. Yet I don't like your solution.
> But if the decision is made to do this in-driver bonding. I would like
> to see it baing done some generic way:
> 1) share the same "in-driver bonding core" code with netvsc
>    put to net/core.
> 2) the "in-driver bonding core" will strictly limit the functionality,
>    like active-backup mode only, one vf, one backup, vf netdev type
>    check (so noone could enslave a tap or anything else)
> If user would need something more, he should employ team/bond.

I'll have to do some research and get back to you with our final
decision on this. There was some internal resistance to splitting out
this code as a separate module, but I think it would need to happen in
order to support multiple drivers.

Also I would be curious how Stephen feels about this. Would the
sharing of the dev, and the use of the phys_port_name on the
base/backup netdev work for netvsc? It seems like it should get them
performance gains on the VF, but I am not sure if there are any
specific requirements that mandated that they had to have 2 netdevs.


- Alex
Virtualization mailing list

Reply via email to