netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 4/5] ice: Add tx_scheduling

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]

Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 18:15:13 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
Cc: Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlopek@...el.com>,
	intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	horms@...nel.org, Lukasz Czapnik <lukasz.czapnik@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 4/5] ice: Add
 tx_scheduling_layers devlink param

Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 02:33:54PM CET, przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com wrote:
>On 2/19/24 13:37, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 11:05:57AM CET, mateusz.polchlopek@...el.com wrote:
>> > From: Lukasz Czapnik <lukasz.czapnik@...el.com>
>> > 
>> > It was observed that Tx performance was inconsistent across all queues
>> > and/or VSIs and that it was directly connected to existing 9-layer
>> > topology of the Tx scheduler.
>> > 
>> > Introduce new private devlink param - tx_scheduling_layers. This parameter
>> > gives user flexibility to choose the 5-layer transmit scheduler topology
>> > which helps to smooth out the transmit performance.
>> > 
>> > Allowed parameter values are 5 and 9.
>> > 
>> > Example usage:
>> > 
>> > Show:
>> > devlink dev param show pci/0000:4b:00.0 name tx_scheduling_layers
>> > pci/0000:4b:00.0:
>> >   name tx_scheduling_layers type driver-specific
>> >     values:
>> >       cmode permanent value 9
>> > 
>> > Set:
>> > devlink dev param set pci/0000:4b:00.0 name tx_scheduling_layers value 5
>> > cmode permanent
>> 
>> This is kind of proprietary param similar to number of which were shot
>
>not sure if this is the same kind of param, but for sure proprietary one
>
>> down for mlx5 in past. Jakub?
>
>I'm not that familiar with the history/ies around mlx5, but this case is
>somewhat different, at least for me:
>we have a performance fix for the tree inside the FW/HW, while you
>(IIRC) were about to introduce some nice and general abstraction layer,
>which could be used by other HW vendors too, but instead it was mlx-only

Nope. Same thing. Vendor/device specific FW/HW knob. Nothing to
abstract.


>
>> 
>> Also, given this is apparently nvconfig configuration, there could be
>> probably more suitable to use some provisioning tool.
>
>TBH, we will want to add some other NVM related params, but that does
>not justify yet another tool to configure PF. (And then there would be
>a big debate if FW update should be moved there too for consistency).
>
>> This is related to the mlx5 misc driver.
>> 
>> Until be figure out the plan, this has my nack:
>> 
>> NAcked-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>
>
>IMO this is an easy case, but would like to hear from netdev maintainers
>
>