[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <979A8436335E3744ADCD3A9F2A2B68A52AF2849F@SJEXCHMB10.corp.ad.broadcom.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:54:27 +0000
From: Yuval Mintz <yuvalmin@...adcom.com>
To: Ido Shamai <idos@....mellanox.co.il>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@...il.com>
CC: Amir Vadai <amirv@...lanox.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Eugenia Emantayev <eugenia@...lanox.com>,
Ido Shamay <idos@...lanox.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net/mlx4: Revert "mlx4: set maximal number
of default RSS queues"
> > Anyway, I believe 8/16 are simply strict limitations without any true
> meaning;
> > To judge what's more important, default `slimness' or default performance
> > is beyond me.
> > Perhaps the numa approach will prove beneficial (and will make some
> sense).
>
> After reviewing all that was said, I feel there is no need to enforce
> vendors with this strict limitation without any true meaning.
>
> The reverted commit you applied forces the driver to use 8 rings at max
> at all time, without the possibility to change in flight using ethtool,
> as it's enforced on the PCI driver at module init (restarting the en
> driver with different of requested rings will not affect).
> So it's crucial for performance oriented applications using mlx4_en.
The rational is to prevent default misusage of resources, be them irq vectors
memories for rings.
Notice this is just the default - You can always re-request interrupts if the
user explicitly requests a large number of rings;
Although, if the driver is incapable of that (e.g., hw limitations), perhaps you
should allocate a larger number of irq vectors during init and use a limitation
on your default number of rings
(that's assuming that irq vectors are really inexpensive on all machines).
> Going through all Ethernet vendors I don't see this limitation enforced,
> so this limitation has no true meaning (no fairness).
> I think this patch should go in as is.
> Ethernet vendors should use it this limitation when they desire.
Might be true, but two wrongs don't make a right.
I believe that either this limitation should be mandatory, or the functionality
Should Not be included in the kernel as communal code and each driver
should do as it pleases.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists