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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <MWHPR1801MB19182D7ADBCF542FCC1C4DDDD30CA@MWHPR1801MB1918.namprd18.prod.outlook.com> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 02:51:24 +0000 From: Ratheesh Kannoth <rkannoth@...vell.com> To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com> CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Sunil Kovvuri Goutham <sgoutham@...vell.com>, Geethasowjanya Akula <gakula@...vell.com>, Subbaraya Sundeep Bhatta <sbhatta@...vell.com>, Hariprasad Kelam <hkelam@...vell.com>, "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>, "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>, "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com> Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net] octeontx2-pf: Set maximum queue size to 16K > From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> > Sent: Saturday, August 5, 2023 2:05 AM > To: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com> > Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net] octeontx2-pf: Set maximum queue size to > 16K > > IDK if I agree with you here :S Tuning this in the driver relies on the > assumption that the HW / driver is the thing that matters. > I'd think that the workload, platform (CPU) and config (e.g. is IOMMU > enabled?) will matter at least as much. While driver developers will end up > tuning to whatever servers they have, random single config and most likely.. > iperf. > > IMO it's much better to re-purpose "pool_size" and treat it as the ring size, > because that's what most drivers end up putting there. > Defer tuning of the effective ring size to the core and user input (via the "it > will be added any minute now" netlink API for configuring page pools)... > > So capping the recycle ring to 32k instead of returning the error seems like an > okay solution for now. Either of the solutions looks Okay to me. Let me push a patch with Jacub's proposal for now. -Ratheesh.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists