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]
Date:   Tue, 23 Apr 2019 09:31:40 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <>
To:     Jiri Pirko <>
Cc:     Ido Schimmel <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        Jiri Pirko <>,
        Petr Machata <>,
        Alex Kushnarov <>,
        mlxsw <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/14] mlxsw: Shared buffer improvements

On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 09:28:02 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 07:26:06AM CEST, wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 02:17:39PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:  
> >> Out of curiosity - are you guys considering adding CPU flavour ports,
> >> or is there a good reason not to have it exposed?  
> >
> >Yes, we are considering that. In fact, Alexander (Cc-ed) just asked me if
> >it is possible to monitor the occupancy in the egress CPU pool. This is
> >impossible without exposing the CPU port and it would have saved us a
> >lot of time while debugging these issues.
> >
> >Do you need this functionality for nfp as well? If so, do you have any
> >thoughts about it? My thinking is that it would be a devlink port
> >without a backing netdev.  
> Similar to CPU port in DSA. It also does not have netdev associated with
> it. We can use the same port flavour:

Yup, to answer Ido's question - not really in nfp we are exposing PCIe
devices as full ports with netdevs because of multi-host and QoS
offloads.  So I never though too much about CPU ports, but for switches
they seem to make perfect sense :)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists