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: <Zd4CMA4F9ARt-rpv@nanopsycho>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:39:28 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	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

Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 02:05:45PM CET, przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com wrote:
>On 2/27/24 13:17, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 03:37:00AM CET, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>> > On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 08:18:00 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> > > > 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?
>> > 
>> > How about this? (BTW took me half an hour to write, just in case
>> > you're wondering)
>
>Thank you!
>
>> > 
>> > diff --git a/Documentation/networking/devlink/devlink-params.rst b/Documentation/networking/devlink/devlink-params.rst
>> > index 4e01dc32bc08..f1eef6d065be 100644
>> > --- a/Documentation/networking/devlink/devlink-params.rst
>> > +++ b/Documentation/networking/devlink/devlink-params.rst
>> > @@ -9,10 +9,12 @@ level device functionality. Since devlink can operate at the device-wide
>> > level, it can be used to provide configuration that may affect multiple
>> > ports on a single device.
>> > 
>> > -This document describes a number of generic parameters that are supported
>> > -across multiple drivers. Each driver is also free to add their own
>> > -parameters. Each driver must document the specific parameters they support,
>> > -whether generic or not.
>> > +There are two categories of devlink parameters - generic parameters
>> > +and device-specific quirks. Generic devlink parameters are configuration
>> > +knobs which don't fit into any larger API, but are supported across multiple
>
>re Jiri: Generic ones are described here.
>
>> > +drivers. This document describes a number of generic parameters.
>> > +Each driver can also add its own parameters, which are documented in driver
>> > +specific files.
>> > 
>> > Configuration modes
>> > ===================
>> > @@ -137,3 +139,32 @@ own name.
>> >     * - ``event_eq_size``
>> >       - u32
>> >       - Control the size of asynchronous control events EQ.
>> > +
>> > +Adding new params
>> > +=================
>> > +
>> > +Addition of new devlink params is carefully scrutinized upstream.
>> > +More complete APIs (in devlink, ethtool, netdev etc.) are always preferred,
>> > +devlink params should never be used in their place e.g. to allow easier
>> > +delivery via out-of-tree modules, or to save development time.
>> > +
>> > +devlink parameters must always be thoroughly documented, both from technical
>> > +perspective (to allow meaningful upstream review), and from user perspective
>> > +(to allow users to make informed decisions).
>> > +
>> > +The requirements above should make it obvious that any "automatic" /
>> > +"pass-through" registration of devlink parameters, based on strings
>> > +read from the device, will not be accepted.
>> > +
>> > +There are two broad categories of devlink params which had been accepted
>> > +in the past:
>> > +
>> > + - device-specific configuration knobs, which cannot be inferred from
>> > +   other device configuration. Note that the author is expected to study
>> > +   other drivers to make sure that the configuration is in fact unique
>> > +   to the implementation.
>
>What if it would not be unique, should they then proceed to add generic
>(other word would be "common") param, and make the other driver/s use
>it? Without deprecating the old method ofc.
>
>What about knob being vendor specific, but given vendor has multiple,
>very similar drivers? (ugh)
>
>> > +
>> > + - configuration which must be set at device initialization time.
>> > +   Allowing user to enable features at runtime is always preferable
>> > +   but in reality most devices allow certain features to be enabled/disabled
>> > +   only by changing configuration stored in NVM.
>> 
>> Looks like most of the generic params does not fit either of these 2
>> categories. Did you mean these 2 categories for driver specific?
>
>If you mean the two paragraphs above (both started by "-"), this is for
>vendor specific knobs, and reads fine.

Do you assume or read it somewhere? I don't see it. I have the same
assumption though :)