[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250218182130.757cc582@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 18:21:30 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, "David S. Miller"
<davem@...emloft.net>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet
<edumazet@...gle.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, Jiri Pirko
<jiri@...dia.com>, Cosmin Ratiu <cratiu@...dia.com>, Carolina Jubran
<cjubran@...dia.com>, Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>, Mark Bloch
<mbloch@...dia.com>, Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>, Jonathan
Corbet <corbet@....net>, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, Leon
Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 03/10] devlink: Serialize access to rate
domains
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 13:54:43 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> For the record, I'm still not convinced that introducing this kind of
> shared inter-devlink lock is good idea. We spent quite a bit of painful
> times getting rid of global devlink_mutex and making devlink locking
> scheme nice and simple as it currently is.
>
> But at the same time I admit I can't think of any other nicer solution
> to the problem this patchset is trying to solve.
>
> Jakub, any thoughts?
The problem comes from having a devlink instance per function /
port rather than for the ASIC. Spawn a single instance and the
problem will go away 🤷️
I think we talked about this multiple times, I think at least
once with Jake, too. Not that I remember all the details now..
--
pw-bot: cr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists