Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1534067

Re: DSA vs envelope frames

From Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: DSA vs envelope frames
Date 2016-12-01 13:50 +0100
Message-ID <sJyYi-3Vi-19@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <sIVtU-3Fz-37@gated-at.bofh.it> <sJ6IF-2A5-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <sJ6IF-2A5-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <sJ8AN-3Kh-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <sJewx-7pR-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On 2016/11/30 23:58, Nikita Yushchenko wrote:
>>> (1) When DSA is in use, frames processed by FEC chip contain DSA tag and
>>> thus can be larger than hardcoded limit of 1522. This issue is not
>>> FEC-specific, any driver that hardcodes maximum frame size to 1522 (many
>>> do) will have this issue if used with DSA.
>>
>> BTW I'm trying to introduce envelope frames to solve this kind of problems.
>> http://marc.info/?t=147496691500005&r=1&w=2
>> http://marc.info/?t=147496691500003&r=1&w=2
>> http://marc.info/?t=147496691500002&r=1&w=2
>> http://marc.info/?t=147496691500004&r=1&w=2
>> http://marc.info/?t=147496691500001&r=1&w=2
>>
>> It needs jumbo frame support of NICs though.
> 
> Thanks for pointing to this.
> 
> Indeed frame with DSA tag conceptually is an envelope frame.
> 
> ndev->env_hdr_len introduced by your patches, actually is explicitly
> handled difference between (MTU + 18) and frame that HW should allow.
> If this is known, hardware can be configured to work with DSA. At least
> FEC hardware that can send and receive "slightly larger" frames after
> simple register configuration.
> 
> Furthermore, since DSA configuration is known statically (it comes from
> device tree), ndo_set_env_hdr_len method could be automatically called
> at init, making setup working by default if driver supports that. And if
> not, perhaps can automatically lower MTU.
> 
> Looks like a solution :)
> 
> What's current status of this work?

Thank you for taking a look.
I'm planning to post v2 soon.

> What is not really clear - what if several tagging protocols are used
> together. AFAIU, things may be more complex that simple appending of
> tags, e.g. EDSA tag can carry VLAN id inside.

If kernel is aware of VLAN configuration, add 4 bytes + DSA tag size.
(I'm not familiar with how dsa knows vlan configuration, but probably
through switchdev_port_obj_add()? If so, dsa should be able to take into
account additional vlan tag size.)

If vlan tag is opaque from kernel, e.g. forwarding vlan tagged frames
without configuring vlan_filtering in bridge, admin needs to set
env_hdr_len manually. This is why I'm proposing manual operation.

Regards,
Toshiaki Makita

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

[patch net / RFC] net: fec: increase frame size limitation to actually available buffer Nikita Yushchenko <nikita.yoush@cogentembedded.com> - 2016-11-29 19:40 +0100
  Re: [patch net / RFC] net: fec: increase frame size limitation to  actually available buffer Nikita Yushchenko <nikita.yoush@cogentembedded.com> - 2016-11-30 07:40 +0100
    RE: [patch net / RFC] net: fec: increase frame size limitation to  actually available buffer Andy Duan <fugang.duan@nxp.com> - 2016-11-30 08:40 +0100
    Re: [patch net / RFC] net: fec: increase frame size limitation to  actually available buffer Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp> - 2016-11-30 09:40 +0100
      DSA vs envelope frames Nikita Yushchenko <nikita.yoush@cogentembedded.com> - 2016-11-30 16:00 +0100
        Re: DSA vs envelope frames Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> - 2016-11-30 16:20 +0100
          Re: DSA vs envelope frames Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 04:50 +0100
        Re: DSA vs envelope frames Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp> - 2016-12-01 13:50 +0100
  RE: [patch net / RFC] net: fec: increase frame size limitation to  actually available buffer Andy Duan <fugang.duan@nxp.com> - 2016-11-30 11:20 +0100
  Re: [patch net / RFC] net: fec: increase frame size limitation to  actually available buffer Zefir Kurtisi <zefir.kurtisi@neratec.com> - 2016-11-30 17:20 +0100

csiph-web