netdev - Re: [net-next 14/15] net/mlx5: Light probe local SFs

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: <20230615093701.20d0ad1b@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 09:37:01 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Tariq Toukan
 <tariqt@...dia.com>, Shay Drory <shayd@...dia.com>, Moshe Shemesh
 <moshe@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 14/15] net/mlx5: Light probe local SFs

On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 12:51:09 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> The problem is scalability. SFs could be activated in parallel, but the
> cmd that is doing that holds devlink instance lock. That serializes it.
> So we need to either:
> 1) change the devlink locking to be able to execute some of the cmds in
>    parallel and leave the activation sync
> 2) change the activation to be async and work with notifications
> 
> I like 2) better, as the 1) maze we just got out of recently :)
> WDYT?

I guess we don't need to wait for the full activation. Is the port
creation also async, then, or just the SF devlink instance creation?