netdev - Re: [net-next 10/14] net/mlx5: Let user configure io_eq

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <91f1f7126508db9687e4a0754b5a6d1696d6994c.camel@nvidia.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Oct 2021 15:54:28 +0000
From:   Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>, "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...dia.com>, Shay Drory <shayd@...dia.com>,
        Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [net-next 10/14] net/mlx5: Let user configure io_eq_size param

On Tue, 2021-10-26 at 08:05 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 13:54:27 -0700 Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> > From: Shay Drory <shayd@...dia.com>
> > 
> > Currently, each I/O EQ is taking 128KB of memory. This size
> > is not needed in all use cases, and is critical with large scale.
> > Hence, allow user to configure the size of I/O EQs.
> > 
> > For example, to reduce I/O EQ size to 64, execute:
> > $ devlink resource set pci/0000:00:0b.0 path /io_eq_size/ size 64
> > $ devlink dev reload pci/0000:00:0b.0
> 
> This sort of config is needed by more drivers,
> we need a standard way of configuring this.
> 

We had a debate internally about the same thing, Jiri and I thought
that EQ might be a ConnectX only thing (maybe some other vendors have
it) but it is not really popular, we thought, until other vendors start
contributing or asking for the same thing, maybe then we can
standardize.

> Sorry, I didn't have the time to look thru your patches
> yesterday, I'm sending a revert for all your new devlink
> params.

Sure, we will submit a RFC to give other vendors a chance to comment,
it will be basically the same patch (devlink resource) while making the
parameters vendor generic.