[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aa5f189a-ac62-4633-97b5-ebf939e9c535@nvidia.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2026 11:59:07 +0200
From: Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Mohsin Bashir <mohsin.bashr@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
alexanderduyck@...com, alok.a.tiwari@...cle.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
andrew@...n.ch, chuck.lever@...cle.com, davem@...emloft.net,
donald.hunter@...il.com, edumazet@...gle.com, horms@...nel.org,
idosch@...dia.com, jacob.e.keller@...el.com, kernel-team@...a.com,
kory.maincent@...tlin.com, lee@...ger.us, pabeni@...hat.com,
vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev, kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] net: ethtool: Track TX pause storm
On 23/01/2026 20:40, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> - The auto-recovery (service task) enforces a fixed policy. Can we make
>> this configurable? I used devlink health (.recover) to let userspace
>> decide between auto-reset or manual intervention.
>
> There is already a tunable for this exact feature but for PFC:
> ETHTOOL_PFC_PREVENTION_TOUT. Should be trivial to add the same thing for
> non-PFC pause. But we didn't want to open the uAPI can of warms unless
> there's a clear ask and consensus. We don't need tuning (or so we
> think), and there was some talk about not adding uAPI for fbnic because
> it's a "private device".
I had to refresh my memory on this, but I think we've chosen a non-ideal
name back then.
We use this value for both PFC and global pause, I recommend you do the
same (perhaps with better documentation?).
mlx5 exposes tx_pause_storm_warning_events/tx_pause_storm_error_events
through 'ethtool -S', we can probably assign one of them into
tx-pause-storm-events.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists