netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 net-next 1/2] devlink: Add shared descriptor eswitch attr

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6da03516-4c77-4f8b-aac3-ad1598f6d6f8@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 21:18:04 -0800
From: William Tu <witu@...dia.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, jiri@...dia.com, bodong@...dia.com,
 tariqt@...dia.com, yossiku@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 net-next 1/2] devlink: Add shared descriptor
 eswitch attr



On 3/5/24 6:30 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 16:27:50 -0800 William Tu wrote:
>>> Can we use bytes as the unit? Like the page pool. Descriptors don't
>>> mean much to the user.
>> But how about the unit size? do we assume unit size = 1 page?
>> so page pool has
>> order: 2^order pages on allocation
>> pool_size: size of ptr_ring
>>
>> How about we assume that order is 0, and let user set pool_size (number
>> of page-size entries).
> Do you mean because the user doesn't know the granularity,
> e.g. we can't allocate 12345 bytes most likely?
>
> For shared buffer (the switch buffer configuration API)
> we report cell size IIRC. In ethtool a lot of drivers just
> round up to whatever they support. We could also treat
> the user-configured value as "upper bound" and effectively
> round down but keep what the user configured exactly, when
> they read back. I like the last one the most, if it makes sense.
got it, I think that also works (round down and keep user's config).
I will work on next version, thanks!
William
>>> Do we need this knob?
>>> Can we not assume that shared-pool-count == 0 means disabled?
>> do you mean assume or not assume?
> Sorry for the double negation (:
>
>> I guess you mean assume, so use "shared-pool-count == 0" to indicate
>> disable?
>> That will also work so we only need to introduce 1 attribute.
> SG!