netdev - Re: [PATCH V3 09/10] bnxt_en: Add TPH support in BNXT driver

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: <91a50d58-f9b3-4003-b694-6829c9bcb0a2@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 00:44:07 -0500
From: Wei Huang <wei.huang2@....com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com, corbet@....net, davem@...emloft.net,
 edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
 alex.williamson@...hat.com, gospo@...adcom.com, michael.chan@...adcom.com,
 ajit.khaparde@...adcom.com, somnath.kotur@...adcom.com,
 andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com, manoj.panicker2@....com,
 Eric.VanTassell@....com, vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev, horms@...nel.org,
 bagasdotme@...il.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 09/10] bnxt_en: Add TPH support in BNXT driver



On 7/23/24 11:48, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 03:55:10PM -0500, Wei Huang wrote:
>> From: Manoj Panicker <manoj.panicker2@....com>
>>
>> Implement TPH support in Broadcom BNXT device driver by invoking
>> pcie_tph_set_st() function when interrupt affinity is changed.
> 
> *and* invoking pcie_tph_set_st() when setting up the IRQ in the first
> place, I guess?
> 
> I guess this gives a significant performance benefit?  The series
> includes "pci=nostmode" so the benefit can be quantified, so now I'm
> curious about what you measured :)

Using network benchmarks, three main metrics were measured: network 
latency, network bandwidth, and memory bandwidth saving.

> 
>> +static void bnxt_rtnl_lock_sp(struct bnxt *bp);
>> +static void bnxt_rtnl_unlock_sp(struct bnxt *bp);
> 
> These duplicate declarations can't be right, can they?  OK for
> work-in-progress, but it doesn't look like the final solution.

Will fix.