[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aFLWpssHj9sE9vvc@mini-arch>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:09:26 -0700
From: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>
To: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, bjorn@...nel.org, magnus.karlsson@...el.com,
maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com, jonathan.lemon@...il.com,
sdf@...ichev.me, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
hawk@...nel.org, john.fastabend@...il.com, joe@...a.to,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net: xsk: add sysctl_xsk_max_tx_budget in
the xmit path
On 06/18, Jason Xing wrote:
> From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
>
> For some applications, it's quite useful to let users have the chance to
> tune the max budget, like accelerating transmission, when xsk is sending
> packets. Exposing such a knob also helps auto/AI tuning in the long run.
>
> The patch unifies two definitions into one that is 32 by default and
> makes the sysctl knob namespecified.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
> ---
> v2
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250617002236.30557-1-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com/
> 1. use a per-netns sysctl knob
Why are you still insisting on the sysctl? Why not a per-socket (struct
xdp_sock) value? And then you can add a setsockopt (xsk_setsockopt) to tune it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists