Re: Question regarding {G,S}CHANNELS API

[Prashant Sreedharan <prashant@broadcom.com>]

On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 15:43 +0000, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> I'm trying to understand how number of "separate" rx/tx vs combined
> channels should be configured.  I'd like to express asymmetric but
> mostly combined queue configuration (i.e. min(rx, tx) is combined the
> rest is separate).  Since default number of RX queues is just 8 it is
> tempting to allocate 8 RX queues but num_online_cpus() TX queues.  Does
> this configuration make sense?  What should ethtool -l report?
> 
> I had a look through the drivers and it seems that most of them fall
> nicely into the all combined and all separate categories. Two
> exceptions I found are bnxt_en (recent Michael's changes) and tg3.
> bnxt_en can switch between combined and separate mode.  tg3 is more
> interesting, it uses separate rx/tx parameters but combines first
> min(rx, tx) of the queues as I would like to.

It does not combine it takes the max(rx, tx)
u32 irq_cnt = max(tp->rxq_cnt, tp->txq_cnt);

> 
> The problem is if I hijack the "separate" rx/tx queues parameters like
> tg3 does there is no way for the user to express that (s)he truly wants
> them separate.  Also it seems that tg3 goes against the ethtool manual
> which states:
> >  rx N   Changes the number of channels with only receive queues.
> >  tx N   Changes the number of channels with only transmit queues.
> Which indicates that if user wants 8 rx, 12 tx and combining (s)he
> should do:
>   ethtool -L ethX combined 8 tx 4

there is no combined option only separate tx/rx option is supported by
tg3 driver. And at max only 4 RX, 4 TX rings are supported by the tg3
family of chips in non-iov mode.

Each status block (which is similar to completion ring) supports 1 RX or
1 TX or both. So at max there are 4 status blocks plus 1 additional
status block for async events. And each status block is assigned a irq.