netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next V2 7/7] net/mlx5e: Defer channels closure to reduce interface down time

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

Message-ID: <aQi1MnDKke7XqA_y@horms.kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2025 13:59:14 +0000
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
	Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, Mark Bloch <mbloch@...dia.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>,
	Carolina Jubran <cjubran@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V2 7/7] net/mlx5e: Defer channels closure to
 reduce interface down time

On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 03:32:39PM +0200, Tariq Toukan wrote:
> Cap bit tis_tir_td_order=1 indicates that an old firmware requirement /
> limitation no longer exists. When unset, the latency of several firmware
> commands significantly increases with the presence of high number of
> co-existing channels (both old and new sets). Hence, we used to close
> unneeded old channels before invoking those firmware commands.
> 
> Today, on capable devices, this is no longer the case. Minimize the
> interface down time by deferring the old channels closure, after the
> activation of the new ones.
> 
> Perf numbers:
> Measured the number of dropped packets in a simple ping flood test,
> during a configuration change operation, that switches the number of
> channels from 247 to 248.
> 
> Before: 71 packets lost
> After:  15 packets lost, ~80% saving.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>
> Reviewed-by: Carolina Jubran <cjubran@...dia.com>

Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>