netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5][pull request] ice: Support 5 layer Tx scheduler topology

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

Message-ID: <20230524092607.17123289@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 09:26:07 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: "Wilczynski, Michal" <michal.wilczynski@...el.com>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
 <davem@...emloft.net>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <lukasz.czapnik@...el.com>,
 <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5][pull request] ice: Support 5 layer Tx
 scheduler topology

On Wed, 24 May 2023 15:25:22 +0200 Wilczynski, Michal wrote:
> >> For performance reasons there is a need to have support for selectable
> >> Tx scheduler topology. Currently firmware supports only the default
> >> 9-layer and 5-layer topology. This patch series enables switch from
> >> default to 5-layer topology, if user decides to opt-in.  
> > Why exactly the user cares which FW implementation you use. From what I
> > see, there is a FW but causing unequal queue distribution in some cases,
> > you fox this. Why would the user want to alter the behaviour between
> > fixed and unfixed?  
> 
> I wouldn't say it's a FW bug. Both approaches - 9-layer and 5-layer
> have their own pros and cons, and in some cases 5-layer is
> preferable, especially if the user desires the performance to be
> better. But at the same time the user gives up the layers in a tree
> that are actually useful in some cases (especially if using DCB, but
> also recently added devlink-rate implementation).

I didn't notice mentions of DCB and devlink-rate in the series.
The whole thing is really poorly explained.