Skip to content

W
White Rabbit Switch - Software
Commit fd0e9d05 authored by Alessandro Rubini's avatar Alessandro Rubini
Browse files
Options

doc: added wrs-todo 

Signed-off-by: Alessandro Rubini's avatarAlessandro Rubini <rubini@gnudd.com>
parent 9758f47e
Hide whitespace changes
Inline Side-by-side
Showing with 423 additions and 0 deletions
doc/wrs-todo.in 0 → 100644
View file @ fd0e9d05
\input texinfo @c -*-texinfo-*-
%
% wrs-todo.in - main file for the documentation
%
%%%%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%
% NOTE FOR THE UNAWARE USER
% =========================
%
% This file is a texinfo source. It isn't the binary file of some strange
% editor of mine. If you want ASCII, you should "make wrs-todo.txt".
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%
% This is not a conventional info file...
% I use three extra features:
% - The '%' as a comment marker, if at beginning of line ("\%" -> "%")
% - leading blanks are allowed (this is something I cannot live without)
% - braces are automatically escaped when they appear in example blocks
%
@comment %**start of header
@documentlanguage en
@documentencoding ISO-8859-1
@setfilename wrs-todo.info
@settitle wrs-todo
@iftex
@afourpaper
@end iftex
@paragraphindent none
@comment %**end of header
@setchapternewpage off
@set update-month August 2014
@c the release name below is substituted at build time
@set release __RELEASE_GIT_ID__
@finalout
@titlepage
@title WRS-Todo
@subtitle What is missing or lacking in wr-switch-sw (my own opinion)
@subtitle @value{update-month} (@value{release})
@author Alessandro Rubini
@end titlepage
@headings single
@c ##########################################################################
@iftex
@contents
@end iftex
@c ##########################################################################
@node Top
@top Introduction
This document lists the items I think are suboptimal in the current
@t{wr-switch-sw} package. This is Alessandro's own personal opition,
but it is more or less agreed-with by other developers in the group.
The items here more a wish list, or long-time planning, rather than
a list of pending bugs. For that, please use the @i{issues} feature
of @t{ohwr.org}.
The document is now included in the master branch, because the list,
seen as a review of the project, is considered useful. Besides, we are
going to fix things over time, from September 2014 onwards, and this
document will be shortened accordingly.
@sp 1
Some things are more important and some are less. Each developer has different
judgment metrics, so I won't mark the items by importance; rather, they
are split into topics and randomly listed within each of them.
@c ##########################################################################
@node Documentation
@chapter Documentation
@itemize @bullet
@item @t{wrs-build} grew to not only cover building. It has some of
the internals, which should be split off to somewhere else.
@item We need a document about internals, but it would somehow conflict
with the 7S user manual. We need to agree carefully about what lives
where. I started one, some time ago, which is not published anywhere;
it still needs serious work but everything depends on how we split
the material.
@item The user manual is not part of the software package, and I'm not
sure whether it should be or not -- it covers hardware as well. But I
really think a user manual is mainly about how to use the thing, so
its place is the software repository. Other people's opinion differ.
@item Documentation about the web interface (by 7S) must find a proper
place in the overall design, too.
@item This document, and likely the @t{snmp-pain} one, should be made
available to users, somehow. We need to choose how. I have nothing against
putting both in the @t{doc} directory of @t{wr-switch-sw}, as we should
not be shy about our own errors and problems, but I need an acknowledge
from higher levels about this. (As a positive side effect, by being part
of the package the documents will remain up to date to the exact
version you check out -- as long as developers are careful enough.
@end itemize
@c ##########################################################################
@node Buildroot
@chapter Buildroot
@itemize @bullet
@item Buildroot, the embedded distribution we are using, should be updated
any now and then. This is not really needed or urgent at this point,
but updating the distribution allows us to stay current with features
people may expect on ``current'' networking gears. This means porting
and verifying our patches -- but they are few and it is not much work.
@item The @i{net-snmp} configuration should be patched to avoid
needless configuration items, like disk usage, processes and the list of
installed packages. For this we can lift a patch by Integrasys, that
must be cherry-picked and verified on the current code base. As a matter
of fact, the @i{snmpd} process is currently more than 1M in RAM footprint.
@item @i{bash} should be the default interactive shell. The management
of history in @i{barebox} is unacceptable (if you @i{ssh} in twice,
the up-arrow will show interference between shells).
@item We need a way to set a root password during configuration.
@end itemize
@c ##########################################################################
@node Booting
@chapter Booting
@itemize @bullet
@item @i{dataflash} support in our version of @i{barebox} is not working.
We need to either upgrade @i{barebox} or fix the bug. I don't know
whether the bug has been fixed in recent boot loader versions (last time
I checked the @i{git} logs I found nothing meaningful, but it was around
May 2014.
@item We need to save some hardware information items to @i{dataflash}.
Such information should never be modified after the switch is shipped.
The plan is using SDB for it (i.e. SDBFS) but we must define proper
procedures and prevent accidental erasure of such data. This is urgent,
and we need it by September for release 4.1.
@item Installation and run-time boots in two different ways. At installation
we do everything using the @i{sam-ba} tools, while runtime relies on
@i{at91boot}. This means we are currently maintaining two different
and very different code bases; SDRAM and clocks configuration is
done twice, in different ways. Both code bases are horrible-quality
code, so we wasted a lot of time already, and more is expected -- all of
this twice. We should get rid of the @i{sam-ba} tools
and use @i{at91boot} for installation. Not trivial, because @i{at91boot}
loads the boot loader from storage, while at installation it must stop
waiting for the boot loader to be sent to RAM from USB.
@end itemize
@c ##########################################################################
@node Kernel and Drivers
@chapter Kernel and Drivers
@itemize @bullet
@item 2.6.39 is pretty old nowadays. We should move to a recent kernel.
Unfortunately this means writing the ``device tree'' crap for our board,
as everything nowadays is device-tree-based. Which in my opinion has
been designed by our competitors, to kill us slowly and painfully.
In addition, our patches must be ported forward.
@item The @i{wr-nic} driver is very similar to what we run for the SPEC,
which is not surprising because the gateware is basically the same.
We should make the two drivers identical. I did some initial work
on this, available in the @i{wr-nic-130207} branch, but it must be
completed (a similar branch exists in @i{spec-sw}, changing the
@t{wr-nic.ko} to use the same code base as the switch.
@item We should push upstream the generic changes we made to the kernel,
like increasing @t{NR_IRQ} and exporting symbols for externally-loaded
@t{irq_chip} drivers.
@item We'd benefit from having ``pstats'' names in @t{/proc/sys} where
the counters are. This would make the @sc{snmp} code generic, so
no change there would be needed if and when the counters change.
@end itemize
@c ##########################################################################
@node Gateware
@chapter Gateware
@itemize @bullet
@item We should have SDB in the switch gateware, to simplify a number
of things and avoid explicit addresses in so many places.
@item the ``pstats'' counters should export a version (even before SDB
is used). Thus, the kernel driver will know what the counters are, and
we could run different gateware images with the same filesystem, because
the driver will support the various versions counter sets.
@end itemize
@c ##########################################################################
@node The WR Processes and Libraries
@chapter The WR Processes and Libraries
@b{Note:} I didn't yet review seriously the WR processes, and I'm sure
I'll have more to complain about when I'm done. Please note that my
criticism is only about the code itself and I've nothing against the
authors of the code: I know the history of the project and why things
are how they are.
@itemize @bullet
@item The most serious problem here is that we have no real design around
the code base. The bunch of things is sticking together, more or less, but
it's not clear to me (and to most other people) what is the role of each
library and how the various items communicate.
@item Related to the previous item, we lack proper locking for FPGA access,
and we should really have a single entry point to hardware, with
serialized access. This may be addressed by writing a driver, or
clarifying the library. I don't know the details at this point in time,
but I know everybody's calling @t{mmap} by itself, which makes me feel
very uneasy.
@item As an example for the above issue, we may well have a @i{wr}
kernel object where the WR date is returned as a @i{sysfs} item. This
would simplify a number of tools that all @t{mmap} the hardware and
arrange for the seconds and fractional part to be returned consistently.
Avoiding repetition of code avoids repetition of bugs as well.
Ideally, in the long run, we'll have a real @i{wr} driver, likely driven
by SDB, so this @i{date} attribute will be part of the WR ABI.
As a side effect, a file-based interface allows off-switch simulation
and development (which includes simulating errors to test error paths in
the actual code).
@item Whether or not we port some stuff in kernel space, we need to have
a single @i{libwr}, to merge and replace @i{libptpnetif} and
@i{libswitchhw}. The role of each of them is not really clear to
developers at this point, and using a single library will simplify
building the tools;
@item While merging the libraries, we should seriously audit them.
Some functions do nothing, some are never called, and some are only
used withing the @i{hal} process, so there's no need to have them
public in an exported library. The library code rusted over the years,
and we can't trust it any more without some clean up. I'm personally
scared every time I look in that code base.
@item The @i{mini-ipc} mechanism is showing its limits. We are communicating
too much information, and the polling mechanism used in some processes
introduces significant delays. Most of the communication is just
about reporting status, so this should be brought to a shared-memory
area with a well-defined structure. Again, this allows simulation and
development off-switch, with fault injection.
@item Whenever @i{ipc} is used for actions, rather than just status passing,
we should audit the processes to ensure the are based on @i{select}
rather than a timely poll. Actually, the HAL process is using quite
a lot of cpu time, and it could do much better.
@item The @i{rtud} should be seriously audited and simplified. The
interface with gateware is now simpler than it was, but software still
has remnants of old data structure. Also, the multi-threaded approach
is overkill, and the program could benefit from a simplification.
@item We need to sort out configuration files. I especially plan to
get rid of @i{lua}; it is only used to set internal variables in the @i{lua}
data structures, that are then queried. This means if you set an unused
item (e.g. because of a typo or some old wishful-thinking documents) it won't
have any effect and it will report no error. The best action may be move
all configurations to the PPSi config file -- the delays and all the rest
are PTP-specific anyways, and PPSi supports per-architecture configuration
items.
@item We need a way to change parameters at run time in the @i{softpll}
implementation running on the switch. We may base this on the @i{ipc}
mechanism that is already in place, or design a well-know structure in
the LM32 code, so the main CPU can just change parameters on the fly.
I prefer the latter approach, but I need to talk with LM32 developers
to agree about how to do that, and ensure everybody follows the policy
we define.
@end itemize
@c ##########################################################################
@node PTP
@chapter PTP
@itemize @bullet
@item We should remove @i{ptp-noposix}. Keeping it around brings a number
of issues; mainly it prevents changes in WR libraries. That's because
any change and cleanup must now be verified against both PPSi and
@i{ptp-noposix}. But the latter is not being used routinely, so those
changes require extra effort and remain not very well tested anyways.
@item PPSi support for @t{arch-wrs} has some strange use for the timeouts,
and some of the code is more complex than it should. I need to audit
it and make it shine. This applies to both the WR servo and the
@t{arch-wrs} code. For the latter, I'm already confident with it,
after fixing the lost-frame problem. Still, some time must be devoted
to this.
@item We should drive the WR PLL when being slave to a non-WR master.
The performance of wr-switch as a slave of another PTP host is now
unacceptable, because we only jump time without adjusting frequency.
@item PPSi should be able to rescan its configuration file. This is needed
to allow management actors to change the configuration and see it
effective soon after.
@item PPSi should be able to scan network interfaces, and apply a default
configuration to them. Listing 18 times the same information is definitely
neither beautiful nor useful.
@item We should clarify how VLANs are managed in our PTP implementation,
and by matching the standard if possible. It currently works ``by
chance'' -- but for example we didn't test on a PC, and there we'll
clearly need to rescan network interfaces to send PTP frames on new
VLANs as they are configured.
@item Our BSD mate @t{phk} made a serious review of PPSi code, and he
outlined a number of lacking areas. We should work on his input, to make
the code base stronger and more maintainable.
@item We should support UDP over IPV6, to be interoperable with our
neighbors, and to advertise ourselves as a more ``complete'' PTP
implementation.
@end itemize
@c ##########################################################################
@node Tools
@chapter Tools
@itemize @bullet
@item Tool naming is completely inconsistent. We should move everything
to use unambiguous naming: @t{wr_} for every wr-wide item, and @t{wrsw_}
for every switch-specific thing. (Actually, @t{wrs_} would be better,
as it doesn't look like ``software'' and we use wrs/wrn internally already,
but several tools use @t{wrsw_} as a prefix already.
We fixed the ``shower'' name -- (@t{shw_ver}: switch hardware version),
but more are there.
@item A number of tools @t{mmap()} FPGA memory, but there is no
locking so it is (remotely) possible for tools to interfere and get
wrong results. We should define a good policy with proper locking, to
avoid mishaps. This problem is listed in @ref{The WR Processes and
Libraries} too.
@item There are too many @i{load} source files in @t{userspace/tools};
some are definitely not used any more. We need to clean up.
@item @t{wr_management} is an incomplete mess; mostly a copy of
@t{wr_mon}, slightly modify in its way toward being something else,
but nobody knows what it is now. We need to make it a serious thing
if it is used (by the web interface, it seems, called by
@t{functions.php}), or kill it outright.
@end itemize
@c ##########################################################################
@node Management
@chapter Management
@itemize @bullet
@item There is no grand design for management as yet. @sc{snmp} support,
the tools and the web interface are all indepenent items. If something
changes we must change it in several places.
@item Current @sc{snmp} code is not beautiful at all (as documented
in the @i{snmp-pain} document) and should be made better. Some stuff
needs to be factorized, some variables should be renamed and the use
of ``context'' items in tables should be fixed.
@item Some items that are already in the WR MIB are not filled, especially
in the PTP/PPSi area.
@item We lack support for the VLAN configuration items. This means
implementing the standardized VLAN MIB. Unfortunately we can't
really have any sensible code using @i{mib2c} (see the @i{snmp-pain}
document, so previous work by Integrasys can be only used as a reference.
also considering the gateware implementation is different from what they
used. Integrasys properly committed the auto-generated code and their
edits separately, so their work can be of help.
@item There is no ``set'' support, we only return values to the
manager by now. While current configuration objects are read-only,
I must learn how to deal with read-write objects before trying to
extend our MIB.
@item There is no support yet for sending traps on WR events.
We'll likely won't to notify WR time jumps and lock/unlock events.
@item We need to seriously audit the web interface, and verify
everything is hooked properly to the system. This relates to the
changes in configuration files and everything else that is going to be
modified in the package at large. Ideally, we should agree about
a single interface between the web and the rest of the system.
If we are brave enough, the web interface might make @sc{snmp} calls;
but this requires having strong @sc{snmp} support for everything, first.
@end itemize
@bye
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment