[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <418702bdb5244eb4811a2a1a536c55c0@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 07:41:13 +0000
From: Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@...wei.com>
To: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
CC: "linuxarm@...neuler.org" <linuxarm@...neuler.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH V2 net] ice: Re-organizes reqstd/avail
{R, T}XQ check/code for efficiency+readability
> From: Paul Menzel [mailto:pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 6:36 AM
> To: Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@...wei.com>
> Cc: linuxarm@...neuler.org; netdev@...r.kernel.org; Linuxarm
> <linuxarm@...wei.com>; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Jeff Kirsher
> <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>; intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org; David S.
> Miller <davem@...emloft.net>; Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH V2 net] ice: Re-organizes reqstd/avail
> {R, T}XQ check/code for efficiency+readability
>
> Dear Salil,
>
>
> Thank you very much for your patch.
Thanks for the review.
> In the git commit message summary, could you please use imperative mood [1]?
No issues. There is always a scope of improvement.
> > Re-organize reqstd/avail {R, T}XQ check/code for efficiency+readability
>
> It’s a bit long though. Maybe:
>
> Avoid unnecessary assignment with user specified {R,T}XQs
Umm..above conveys the wrong meaning as this is not what patch is doing.
If you see the code, in the presence of the user specified {R,T}XQs it
avoids fetching available {R,T}XQ count.
What about below?
"Avoid unnecessary avail_{r,t}xq assignments if user has specified Qs"
> Am 14.04.21 um 00:44 schrieb Salil Mehta:
> > If user has explicitly requested the number of {R,T}XQs, then it is
> > unnecessary to get the count of already available {R,T}XQs from the
> > PF avail_{r,t}xqs bitmap. This value will get overridden by user specified
> > value in any case.
> >
> > This patch does minor re-organization of the code for improving the flow
> > and readabiltiy. This scope of improvement was found during the review of
>
> readabil*it*y
Thanks. Missed that earlier. My shaky fingers :(
> > the ICE driver code.
> >
> > FYI, I could not test this change due to unavailability of the hardware.
> > It would be helpful if somebody can test this patch and provide Tested-by
> > Tag. Many thanks!
>
> This should go outside the commit message (below the --- for example).
Agreed.
> > Fixes: 87324e747fde ("ice: Implement ethtool ops for channels")
>
> Did you check the behavior before is actually a bug? Or is it just for
> the detection heuristic for commits to be applied to the stable series?
Right, later was the idea.
> > Cc: intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org
> > Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@...wei.com>
> > --
> > Change V1->V2
> > (*) Fixed the comments from Anthony Nguyen(Intel)
> > Link: https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/4/12/1997
> > ---
> > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_lib.c | 14 ++++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_lib.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_lib.c
> > index d13c7fc8fb0a..d77133d6baa7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_lib.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_lib.c
> > @@ -161,12 +161,13 @@ static void ice_vsi_set_num_qs(struct ice_vsi *vsi, u16
> vf_id)
> >
> > switch (vsi->type) {
> > case ICE_VSI_PF:
> > - vsi->alloc_txq = min3(pf->num_lan_msix,
> > - ice_get_avail_txq_count(pf),
> > - (u16)num_online_cpus());
> > if (vsi->req_txq) {
> > vsi->alloc_txq = vsi->req_txq;
> > vsi->num_txq = vsi->req_txq;
> > + } else {
> > + vsi->alloc_txq = min3(pf->num_lan_msix,
> > + ice_get_avail_txq_count(pf),
> > + (u16)num_online_cpus());
> > }
>
> I am curious, did you check the compiler actually creates different
> code, or did it notice the inefficiency by itself and optimized it already?
I have not looked into that detail but irrespective of what compiler generates
I would like to keep the code in a shape which is more efficient and more readable.
I do understand in certain cases we have to do tradeoff between efficiency
and readability but I do not see that here.
> > pf->num_lan_tx = vsi->alloc_txq;
> > @@ -175,12 +176,13 @@ static void ice_vsi_set_num_qs(struct ice_vsi *vsi, u16
> vf_id)
> > if (!test_bit(ICE_FLAG_RSS_ENA, pf->flags)) {
> > vsi->alloc_rxq = 1;
> > } else {
> > - vsi->alloc_rxq = min3(pf->num_lan_msix,
> > - ice_get_avail_rxq_count(pf),
> > - (u16)num_online_cpus());
> > if (vsi->req_rxq) {
> > vsi->alloc_rxq = vsi->req_rxq;
> > vsi->num_rxq = vsi->req_rxq;
> > + } else {
> > + vsi->alloc_rxq = min3(pf->num_lan_msix,
> > + ice_get_avail_rxq_count(pf),
> > + (u16)num_online_cpus());
> > }
> > }
> >
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists