[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <SJ1PR11MB6180C190E2ADF4FB2B17A430B8EFA@SJ1PR11MB6180.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 02:52:30 +0000
From: "Zulkifli, Muhammad Husaini" <muhammad.husaini.zulkifli@...el.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: "Nguyen, Anthony L" <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, "davem@...emloft.net"
<davem@...emloft.net>, "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "Neftin, Sasha" <sasha.neftin@...el.com>,
"horms@...nel.org" <horms@...nel.org>, "bcreeley@....com" <bcreeley@....com>,
Naama Meir <naamax.meir@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net v3 2/2] igc: Modify the tx-usecs coalesce setting
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 00:59:40 +0000 Zulkifli, Muhammad Husaini wrote:
> > However, if the user enters the same value for the tx-usecs and a
> > different value for the rx-usecs, the command will succeed. .
> > Are you ok with it?
>
> It's unfortunate, but strictly better than the alternative, AFACT.
Agree.
> In the ioctl uAPI we can't differentiate between params which were echoed back
> to us vs those user set via CLI to what they already were.
>
> Maybe we should extend the uAPI and add a "queue pair" IRQ moderation?
Good advice. BTW, if queue pair setting is enabled in the driver, could we change the existing ".supported_coalesce_params" for driver specific?
From:
ETHTOOL_COALESCE_USECS which support (ETHTOOL_COALESCE_RX_USECS | ETHTOOL_COALESCE_TX_USECS)
To (new define):
ETHTOOL_QUEUE_PAIR_COALESCE_USECS (ETHTOOL_COALESCE_RX_USECS)
With this, I believe user cannot set tx-usecs and will return error of unsupported parameters.
Thanks,
Husaini
Powered by blists - more mailing lists