netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 00/10] mlxsw: Support for shared buffers in Spectrum-2

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20190221.155803.761850505171399497.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Thu, 21 Feb 2019 15:58:03 -0800 (PST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     idosch@...lanox.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, jiri@...lanox.com, petrm@...lanox.com,
        mlxsw@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/10] mlxsw: Support for shared buffers in
 Spectrum-2

From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 19:32:10 +0000

> Petr says:
> 
> Spectrum-2 will be configured with a different set of pools than
> Spectrum-1, their sizes will be larger, and the individual quotas will
> be different as well. It is therefore necessary to make the shared
> buffer module aware of this dependence on chip type, and adjust the
> individual tables.
> 
> In patch #1, introduce a structure for keeping per-chip immutable and
> default values.
> 
> In patch #2, structures for keeping current values of SBPM and SBPR
> (pool configuration and port-pool quota) are allocated dynamically to
> support varying pool counts.
> 
> In patches #3 to #7, uses of individual shared buffer configuration
> tables are migrated from global definitions to fields in struct
> mlxsw_sp_sb_vals, which was introduced above.
> 
> Up until this point, the actual configuration is still the one suitable
> for Spectrum-1. In patch #8 Spectrum-2 configuration is added.
> 
> In patch #9, port headroom configuration is changed to take into account
> current recommended value for a 100-Gbps port, and the split factor.
> 
> In patch #10, requests for overlarge headroom are rejected. This avoids
> potential chip freeze should such overlarge requests be made.

Series applied, thanks.