[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID:
<BY3PR18MB47072FD89E07CC65B30FD634A0F82@BY3PR18MB4707.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 10:40:39 +0000
From: Sai Krishna Gajula <saikrishnag@...vell.com>
To: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net"
<davem@...emloft.net>,
"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sunil Kovvuri
Goutham <sgoutham@...vell.com>,
Geethasowjanya Akula <gakula@...vell.com>,
Hariprasad Kelam <hkelam@...vell.com>,
Subbaraya Sundeep Bhatta
<sbhatta@...vell.com>
Subject: RE: Re: [net-next PATCH v3] octeontx2-pf: Add ucast filter count
configurability via devlink.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 12:08 AM
> To: Sai Krishna Gajula <saikrishnag@...vell.com>; davem@...emloft.net;
> edumazet@...gle.com; kuba@...nel.org; pabeni@...hat.com;
> netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Sunil Kovvuri
> Goutham <sgoutham@...vell.com>; Geethasowjanya Akula
> <gakula@...vell.com>; Hariprasad Kelam <hkelam@...vell.com>;
> Subbaraya Sundeep Bhatta <sbhatta@...vell.com>
> Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v3] octeontx2-pf: Add ucast filter
> count configurability via devlink.
>
>
> On 5/30/2024 3:15 AM, Sai Krishna wrote:
> > Added a devlink param to set/modify unicast filter count. Currently
> > it's hardcoded with a macro.
> >
> > commands:
> >
> > To get the current unicast filter count # devlink dev param show
> > pci/0002:02:00.0 name unicast_filter_count
> >
> > To change/set the unicast filter count # devlink dev param set
> > pci/0002:02:00.0 name unicast_filter_count value 5 cmode runtime
> >
>
> A bit of explanation about why this needs to be configurable would be
> useful. What is the impact of lowering or raising this value? Presumably
> you need to change the MCAM table size? Lowering this on one port might
> enable raising it on another?
>
> It seems reasonable to me, but it is helpful to provide such motivations
> in the commit message.
Ack, will add more info to commit message in patch V4.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Sai Krishna <saikrishnag@...vell.com>
> > ---
> > v3:
> > - Addressed review comments given by Jakub Kicinski
> > 1. Documented unicast_filter_count devlink param
> > 2. Minor change to match upstream code base
> > v2:
> > - Addressed review comments given by Simon Horman
> > 1. Updated the commit message with example commads
> > 2. Modified/optimized conditions
> >
> > .../networking/devlink/octeontx2.rst | 16 +++++
> > .../marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_common.h | 7 +-
> > .../marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_devlink.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++
> > .../marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c | 20 +++---
> > .../ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_pf.c | 2 +-
> > 5 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/networking/devlink/octeontx2.rst
> b/Documentation/networking/devlink/octeontx2.rst
> > index 610de99b728a..5910289b4d4e 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/networking/devlink/octeontx2.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/networking/devlink/octeontx2.rst
> > @@ -40,3 +40,19 @@ The ``octeontx2 AF`` driver implements the following
> driver-specific parameters.
> > - runtime
> > - Use to set the quantum which hardware uses for scheduling among
> transmit queues.
> > Hardware uses weighted DWRR algorithm to schedule among all
> transmit queues.
> > +
> > +The ``octeontx2 PF`` driver implements the following driver-specific
> parameters.
> > +
> > +.. list-table:: Driver-specific parameters implemented
> > + :widths: 5 5 5 85
> > +
> > + * - Name
> > + - Type
> > + - Mode
> > + - Description
> > + * - ``unicast_filter_count``
> > + - u8
> > + - runtime
> > + - Used to Set/modify unicast filter count, which helps in better utilization
> of
> > + resources against possible wastage(un-used) with current scheme of
> hardcoded
> > + unicast count.
>
> The text here could be worded a little better. Once the patch is applied
> then hard coding is no longer the "current scheme".
>
> I might have worded this like:
>
> "Set the maximum number of unicast filters that can be programmed for
> the device. This can be used to achieve better device resource
> utilization, avoiding over consumption of unused MCAM table entries."
>
> Or something similar.
Ack, will re-word the text.. in patch V4.
Thanks,
Sai
Powered by blists - more mailing lists