[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <668c4c2cad160_19d5c1294e8@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2024 16:29:32 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
edumazet@...gle.com,
pabeni@...hat.com,
petrm@...dia.com,
przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com,
ecree.xilinx@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/5] selftests: drv-net: rss_ctx: test queue
changes vs user RSS config
Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 12:56:01 -0400 Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > > There may be background noise traffic on the main context.
> > > If we are running iperf to the main context the noise will just add up
> > > to the iperf traffic and all other queues should be completely idle.
> > > If we're testing additional context we'll get only iperf traffic on
> > > the target context, and all non-iperf noise stays on main context
> > > (hence noise rather than empty)
> >
> > That makes sense. Should the following be inverted then?
> >
> > + if main_ctx:
> > + other_key = 'empty'
> > + defer(ethtool, f"-X {cfg.ifname} default")
> > + else:
> > + other_key = 'noise'
>
> No, unless I'm confused. if we're testing the main context the other
> queues will be empty. Else we're testing other (additional) contexts
> and queues outside those contexts will contain noise (the queues in
> the main context, specifically).
Nope, I'm the one who was confused, of course :)
I for some reason assumed that the contexts had exclusive queue sets.
Rather than these being absolute queue indexes and overlapping with
main_ctx.
In which case, understood. Sorry for the noise.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists