IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
The MAC Merge layer (IEEE 802.3-2018 clause 99) does all the heavy
lifting for Frame Preemption (IEEE 802.1Q-2018 clause 6.7.2), a TSN
feature for minimizing latency.
Preemptible traffic is different on the wire from normal traffic in
incompatible ways. If we send a preemptible packet and the link partner
doesn't support preemption, it will drop it as an error frame and we
will never know. The MAC Merge layer has a control plane of its own,
which can be manipulated (using ethtool) in order to negotiate this
capability with the link partner (through LLDP).
Actually the TLV format for LLDP solves this problem only partly,
because both partners only advertise:
- if they support preemption (RX and TX)
- if they have enabled preemption (TX)
so we cannot tell the link partner what to do - we cannot force it to
enable reception of our preemptible packets.
That is fully solved by the verification feature, where the local device
generates some small probe frames which look like preemptible frames
with no useful content, and the link partner is obliged to respond to
them if it supports the standard. If the verification times out, we know
that preemption isn't active in our TX direction on the link.
Having clarified the definition, this selftest exercises the manual
(ethtool) configuration path of 2 link partners (with and without
verification), and the LLDP code path, using the openlldp project.
The test also verifies the TX activity of the MAC Merge layer by
sending traffic through a traffic class configured as preemptible
(using mqprio). There isn't a good way to make this really portable
(user space cannot find out how many traffic classes there are for
a device), but I chose num_tc 4 here, that should work reasonably well.
I also know that some devices (stmmac) only permit TXQ0 to be
preemptible, so this is why PREEMPTIBLE_PRIO was strategically chosen
as 0. Even if other hardware is more configurable, this test should
cover the baseline.
This is not really a "forwarding" selftest, but I put it near the other
"ethtool" selftests.
$ ./ethtool_mm.sh eno0 swp0
TEST: Manual configuration with verification: eno0 to swp0 [ OK ]
TEST: Manual configuration with verification: swp0 to eno0 [ OK ]
TEST: Manual configuration without verification: eno0 to swp0 [ OK ]
TEST: Manual configuration without verification: swp0 to eno0 [ OK ]
TEST: Manual configuration with failed verification: eno0 to swp0 [ OK ]
TEST: Manual configuration with failed verification: swp0 to eno0 [ OK ]
TEST: LLDP [ OK ]
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Motivation
==========
One of the nice things about network namespaces is that they allow one
to easily create and test complex environments.
Unfortunately, these namespaces can not be used with actual switching
ASICs, as their ports can not be migrated to other network namespaces
(NETIF_F_NETNS_LOCAL) and most of them probably do not support the
L1-separation provided by namespaces.
However, a similar kind of flexibility can be achieved by using VRFs and
by looping the switch ports together. For example:
br0
+
vrf-h1 | vrf-h2
+ +---+----+ +
| | | |
192.0.2.1/24 + + + + 192.0.2.2/24
swp1 swp2 swp3 swp4
+ + + +
| | | |
+--------+ +--------+
The VRFs act as lightweight namespaces representing hosts connected to
the switch.
This approach for testing switch ASICs has several advantages over the
traditional method that requires multiple physical machines, to name a
few:
1. Only the device under test (DUT) is being tested without noise from
other system.
2. Ability to easily provision complex topologies. Testing bridging
between 4-ports LAGs or 8-way ECMP requires many physical links that are
not always available. With the VRF-based approach one merely needs to
loopback more ports.
These tests are written with switch ASICs in mind, but they can be run
on any Linux box using veth pairs to emulate physical loopbacks.
Guidelines for Writing Tests
============================
o Where possible, reuse an existing topology for different tests instead
of recreating the same topology.
o Tests that use anything but the most trivial topologies should include
an ASCII art showing the topology.
o Where possible, IPv6 and IPv4 addresses shall conform to RFC 3849 and
RFC 5737, respectively.
o Where possible, tests shall be written so that they can be reused by
multiple topologies and added to lib.sh.
o Checks shall be added to lib.sh for any external dependencies.
o Code shall be checked using ShellCheck [1] prior to submission.
1. https://www.shellcheck.net/
e6991384ac