[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200310014246.30830-7-saeedm@mellanox.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 18:42:41 -0700
From: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, kuba@...nel.org
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>,
Mark Bloch <markb@...lanox.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Subject: [net-next 06/11] net/mlx5: Allocate smaller size tables for ft offload
From: Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>
Instead of giving ft tables one of the largest tables available - 4M,
give it a more reasonable size - 64k. Especially since it will
always be created as a miss hook in the following patch.
Signed-off-by: Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>
Reviewed-by: Mark Bloch <markb@...lanox.com>
Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
---
.../ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch_offloads_chains.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch_offloads_chains.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch_offloads_chains.c
index d41e4f002b84..8bfa53ea5dd8 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch_offloads_chains.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch_offloads_chains.c
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ static const unsigned int ESW_POOLS[] = { 4 * 1024 * 1024,
1 * 1024 * 1024,
64 * 1024,
128 };
+#define ESW_FT_TBL_SZ (64 * 1024)
struct mlx5_esw_chains_priv {
struct rhashtable chains_ht;
@@ -201,7 +202,9 @@ mlx5_esw_chains_create_fdb_table(struct mlx5_eswitch *esw,
ft_attr.flags |= (MLX5_FLOW_TABLE_TUNNEL_EN_REFORMAT |
MLX5_FLOW_TABLE_TUNNEL_EN_DECAP);
- sz = mlx5_esw_chains_get_avail_sz_from_pool(esw, POOL_NEXT_SIZE);
+ sz = (chain == mlx5_esw_chains_get_ft_chain(esw)) ?
+ mlx5_esw_chains_get_avail_sz_from_pool(esw, ESW_FT_TBL_SZ) :
+ mlx5_esw_chains_get_avail_sz_from_pool(esw, POOL_NEXT_SIZE);
if (!sz)
return ERR_PTR(-ENOSPC);
ft_attr.max_fte = sz;
--
2.24.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists