netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v9] Add support to set NAPI threaded for individual NAPI

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <686eea15af0d8_c722b29467@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2025 18:15:49 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
 willemb@...gle.com, 
 Joe Damato <joe@...a.to>
Cc: Samiullah Khawaja <skhawaja@...gle.com>, 
 "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, 
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
 almasrymina@...gle.com, 
 mkarsten@...terloo.ca, 
 netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v9] Add support to set NAPI threaded for
 individual NAPI

Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> [swapping Joe's email for a working one]
> 
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 17:53:16 +0000 Samiullah Khawaja wrote:
> > A net device has a threaded sysctl that can be used to enable threaded
> > NAPI polling on all of the NAPI contexts under that device. Allow
> > enabling threaded NAPI polling at individual NAPI level using netlink.
> > 
> > Extend the netlink operation `napi-set` and allow setting the threaded
> > attribute of a NAPI. This will enable the threaded polling on a NAPI
> > context.
> > 
> > Add a test in `nl_netdev.py` that verifies various cases of threaded
> > NAPI being set at NAPI and at device level.
> 
> LGTM, but as we discussed many version ago my subjective preference
> would be for the per-queue setting to be tri-state (unset=follow the
> device setting, enabled, disabled). Rather than have the device level
> act as an override when written. It sounded like Willem and Joe thought
> that's too complicated and diverges from the existing behavior.
> Which is fine by me. But I'd like to see some review tags from them
> now :)
> 
> Gentlemen?

Missed that earlier, sorry.

Reviewed-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>