netdev - Re: [PATCH iwl-next] idpf: preserve coalescing settings across resets

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <c4164071-60c8-4b06-a710-70d5fbef2b11@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 09:48:02 -0600
From: Ahmed Zaki <ahmed.zaki@...el.com>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
CC: <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "Madhu
 Chittim" <madhu.chittim@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-next] idpf: preserve coalescing settings across resets



On 2025-06-21 6:13 a.m., Simon Horman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 11:15:48AM -0600, Ahmed Zaki wrote:
>> The IRQ coalescing config currently reside only inside struct
>> idpf_q_vector. However, all idpf_q_vector structs are de-allocated and
>> re-allocated during resets. This leads to user-set coalesce configuration
>> to be lost.
>>
>> Add new fields to struct idpf_vport_user_config_data to save the user
>> settings and re-apply them after reset.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Madhu Chittim <madhu.chittim@...el.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Ahmed Zaki <ahmed.zaki@...el.com>
> 
> Hi Ahmed,
> 
> I am wondering if this patch also preserves coalescing settings in the case
> where.
> 
> 1. User sets coalescence for n queues
> 2. The number of queues is reduced, say to m (where m < n)
> 3. The user then increases the number of queues, say back to n
> 
> It seems to me that in this scenario it's reasonable to preserve
> the settings for queues 0 to m, bit not queues m + 1 to n.

Hi Simon,

I just did a quick test and it seems new settings are preserved in the 
above scenario: all n queues have the new coalescing settings.

> 
> But perhaps this point is orthogonal to this change.
> I am unsure.
> 

Agreed, but let me know if it is a showstopper.

Ahmed