netdev - Re: [iwl-net PATCH v2] idpf: change IRQ naming to match netdev and ethtool queue numbering

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: <37e1a648-609b-4d5e-9176-fbbacc7e9e07@lunn.ch>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 17:24:06 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Brian Vazquez <brianvv@...gle.com>
Cc: Brian Vazquez <brianvv.kernel@...il.com>,
	Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
	Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
	David Decotigny <decot@...gle.com>, Li Li <boolli@...gle.com>,
	Anjali Singhai <anjali.singhai@...el.com>,
	Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	emil.s.tantilov@...el.com, Brett Creeley <brett.creeley@....com>,
	Aleksandr Loktionov <aleksandr.loktionov@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [iwl-net PATCH v2] idpf: change IRQ naming to match netdev and
 ethtool queue numbering

On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 02:46:24PM +0000, Brian Vazquez wrote:
> The code uses the vidx for the IRQ name but that doesn't match ethtool
> reporting or netdev naming, this makes it hard to tune the device and
> associate queues with IRQs. Sequentially requesting irqs starting from
> '0' makes the output consistent.
> 
> Before:
> 
> ethtool -L eth1 tx 1 combined 3
> 
> grep . /proc/irq/*/*idpf*/../smp_affinity_list
> /proc/irq/67/idpf-Mailbox-0/../smp_affinity_list:0-55,112-167
> /proc/irq/68/idpf-eth1-TxRx-1/../smp_affinity_list:0
> /proc/irq/70/idpf-eth1-TxRx-3/../smp_affinity_list:1
> /proc/irq/71/idpf-eth1-TxRx-4/../smp_affinity_list:2
> /proc/irq/72/idpf-eth1-Tx-5/../smp_affinity_list:3
> 
> ethtool -S eth1 | grep -v ': 0'
> NIC statistics:
>      tx_q-0_pkts: 1002
>      tx_q-1_pkts: 2679
>      tx_q-2_pkts: 1113
>      tx_q-3_pkts: 1192 <----- tx_q-3 vs idpf-eth1-Tx-5
>      rx_q-0_pkts: 1143
>      rx_q-1_pkts: 3172
>      rx_q-2_pkts: 1074
> 
> After:
> 
> ethtool -L eth1 tx 1 combined 3
> 
> grep . /proc/irq/*/*idpf*/../smp_affinity_list
> 
> /proc/irq/67/idpf-Mailbox-0/../smp_affinity_list:0-55,112-167
> /proc/irq/68/idpf-eth1-TxRx-0/../smp_affinity_list:0
> /proc/irq/70/idpf-eth1-TxRx-1/../smp_affinity_list:1
> /proc/irq/71/idpf-eth1-TxRx-2/../smp_affinity_list:2
> /proc/irq/72/idpf-eth1-Tx-3/../smp_affinity_list:3
> 
> ethtool -S eth1 | grep -v ': 0'
> NIC statistics:
>      tx_q-0_pkts: 118
>      tx_q-1_pkts: 134
>      tx_q-2_pkts: 228
>      tx_q-3_pkts: 138 <--- tx_q-3 matches idpf-eth1-Tx-3
>      rx_q-0_pkts: 111
>      rx_q-1_pkts: 366
>      rx_q-2_pkts: 120

Are there any ABI issues here?

   Andrew