[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241009084626.0e0d6780@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 08:46:26 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
almasrymina@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
donald.hunter@...il.com, corbet@....net, michael.chan@...adcom.com,
kory.maincent@...tlin.com, andrew@...n.ch, maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com,
danieller@...dia.com, hengqi@...ux.alibaba.com, ecree.xilinx@...il.com,
przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com, hkallweit1@...il.com, ahmed.zaki@...el.com,
paul.greenwalt@...el.com, rrameshbabu@...dia.com, idosch@...dia.com,
asml.silence@...il.com, kaiyuanz@...gle.com, willemb@...gle.com,
aleksander.lobakin@...el.com, dw@...idwei.uk, sridhar.samudrala@...el.com,
bcreeley@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 3/7] net: ethtool: add support for
configuring tcp-data-split-thresh
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 23:25:55 +0900 Taehee Yoo wrote:
> > > The tcp-data-split is not enabled, the tcp-data-split-thresh will
> > > not be used and can't be configured.
> > >
> > > # ethtool -G enp14s0f0np0 tcp-data-split off
> > > # ethtool -g enp14s0f0np0
> > > Ring parameters for enp14s0f0np0:
> > > Pre-set maximums:
> > > ...
> > > TCP data split thresh: 256
> > > Current hardware settings:
> > > ...
> > > TCP data split: off
> > > TCP data split thresh: n/a
> >
> > My reply to Sridhar was probably quite unclear on this point, but FWIW
> > I do also have a weak preference to drop the "TCP" from the new knob.
> > Rephrasing what I said here:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240911173150.571bf93b@kernel.org/
> > the old knob is defined as being about TCP but for the new one we can
> > pick how widely applicable it is (and make it cover UDP as well).
>
> I'm not sure that I understand about "knob".
> The knob means the command "tcp-data-split-thresh"?
> If so, I would like to change from "tcp-data-split-thresh" to
> "header-data-split-thresh".
Sounds good!
> > > + if (tb[ETHTOOL_A_RINGS_TCP_DATA_SPLIT_THRESH] &&
> > > + !(ops->supported_ring_params & ETHTOOL_RING_USE_TCP_DATA_SPLIT)) {
> >
> > here you use the existing flag, yet gve and idpf set that flag and will
> > ignore the setting silently. They need to be changed or we need a new
> > flag.
>
> Okay, I would like to add the ETHTOOL_RING_USE_TCP_DATA_SPLIT_THRESH flag.
> Or ETHTOOL_RING_USE_HDS_THRESH, which indicates header-data-split thresh.
> If you agree with adding a new flag, how do you think about naming it?
How about ETHTOOL_RING_USE_HDS_THRS ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists