linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 03/10] dpaa_eth: add configurable bpool thresholds

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:54:09 +0000
From:	Madalin-Cristian Bucur <madalin.bucur@...escale.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	"joe@...ches.com" <joe@...ches.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>,
	Liberman Igal <Igal.Liberman@...escale.com>,
	"ppc@...dchasers.com" <ppc@...dchasers.com>,
	"pebolle@...cali.nl" <pebolle@...cali.nl>,
	"joakim.tjernlund@...nsmode.se" <joakim.tjernlund@...nsmode.se>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 03/10] dpaa_eth: add configurable bpool thresholds

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Miller [mailto:davem@...emloft.net]
> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 2:35 AM
> To: Bucur Madalin-Cristian-B32716
> Cc: joe@...ches.com; netdev@...r.kernel.org; linuxppc-
> dev@...ts.ozlabs.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Wood Scott-B07421;
> Liberman Igal-B31950; ppc@...dchasers.com; pebolle@...cali.nl;
> joakim.tjernlund@...nsmode.se
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] dpaa_eth: add configurable bpool thresholds
> 
> From: Madalin-Cristian Bucur <madalin.bucur@...escale.com>
> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 15:49:39 +0000
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Joe Perches [mailto:joe@...ches.com]
> >> On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 19:16 +0300, Madalin Bucur wrote:
> >> > Allow the user to tweak the refill threshold and the total number
> >> > of buffers in the buffer pool. The provided values are for one CPU.
> >>
> >> Any value in making these module parameters instead?
> >
> > I expect one would (hardly ever) change these to improve some corner
> > cases then use them with the new values. It may help in the tuning process
> > but afterwards the bloat to the bootcmd would probably be  a nuisance.
> 
> I think these should be controlled by the existing ethtool infrastructure.
> 
> Neither the Kconfig mechanism nor module parameters are appropriate, at
> all.

The existing ethtool options are for ring based drivers (ethtool -g / -G).
I would not use those as we are not using rings (they do not map well anyway).

We could introduce special options for our non-ring devices but for these
parameters in particular I'd just resort to defines in the code as it's
improbable one would want to change them.

Madalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/