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]

Message-ID: <ZdrpqCF3GWrMpt-t@nanopsycho>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2024 08:18:00 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlopek@...el.com>,
	intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	horms@...nel.org, przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com,
	Lukasz Czapnik <lukasz.czapnik@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 4/5] ice: Add
 tx_scheduling_layers devlink param

Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 03:27:57PM CET, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 10:45:01 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> Jiri, I'm not aware of any other devices with this sort of trade off.
>>> We shouldn't add the param if either:
>>>  - this can be changed dynamically as user instantiates rate limiters;
>>>  - we know other devices have similar needs.
>>> If neither of those is true, param seems fine to me..  
>> 
>> Where is this policy documented? If not, could you please? Let's make
>> this policy clear for now and for the future.
>
>Because you think it's good as a policy or because not so much?
>Both of the points are a judgment call, at least from upstream
>perspective since we're working with very limited information.
>So enshrining this as a "policy" is not very practical.

No, I don't mind the policy. Up to you. Makes sense to me. I'm just
saying it would be great to have this written down so everyone can
easily tell which kind of param is and is not acceptable.


>
>Do you recall any specific param that got rejected from mlx5?
>Y'all were allowed to add the eq sizing params, which I think
>is not going to be mlx5-only for long. Otherwise I only remember
>cases where I'd try to push people to use the resource API, which
>IMO is better for setting limits and delegating resources.

I don't have anything solid in mind, I would have to look it up. But
there is certainly quite big amount of uncertainties among my
colleagues to jundge is some param would or would not be acceptable to
you. That's why I believe it would save a lot of people time to write
the policy down in details, with examples, etc. Could you please?

Thanks!