From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: "Wilczynski, Michal" <michal.wilczynski@intel.com>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>, <davem@davemloft.net>,
<pabeni@redhat.com>, <edumazet@google.com>,
<netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <lukasz.czapnik@intel.com>,
<przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5][pull request] ice: Support 5 layer Tx scheduler topology
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 09:26:07 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230524092607.17123289@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <98366fa5-dc88-aa73-d07b-10e3bc84321c@intel.com>
On Wed, 24 May 2023 15:25:22 +0200 Wilczynski, Michal wrote:
> >> For performance reasons there is a need to have support for selectable
> >> Tx scheduler topology. Currently firmware supports only the default
> >> 9-layer and 5-layer topology. This patch series enables switch from
> >> default to 5-layer topology, if user decides to opt-in.
> > Why exactly the user cares which FW implementation you use. From what I
> > see, there is a FW but causing unequal queue distribution in some cases,
> > you fox this. Why would the user want to alter the behaviour between
> > fixed and unfixed?
>
> I wouldn't say it's a FW bug. Both approaches - 9-layer and 5-layer
> have their own pros and cons, and in some cases 5-layer is
> preferable, especially if the user desires the performance to be
> better. But at the same time the user gives up the layers in a tree
> that are actually useful in some cases (especially if using DCB, but
> also recently added devlink-rate implementation).
I didn't notice mentions of DCB and devlink-rate in the series.
The whole thing is really poorly explained.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-24 16:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-23 17:40 [PATCH net-next 0/5][pull request] ice: Support 5 layer Tx scheduler topology Tony Nguyen
2023-05-23 17:40 ` [PATCH net-next 1/5] ice: Support 5 layer topology Tony Nguyen
2023-05-23 17:40 ` [PATCH net-next 2/5] ice: Adjust the VSI/Aggregator layers Tony Nguyen
2023-05-23 17:40 ` [PATCH net-next 3/5] ice: Enable switching default tx scheduler topology Tony Nguyen
2023-05-23 17:40 ` [PATCH net-next 4/5] ice: Add txbalancing devlink param Tony Nguyen
2023-05-24 11:57 ` Jiri Pirko
2023-05-25 16:01 ` Lukasz Czapnik
2023-05-23 17:40 ` [PATCH net-next 5/5] ice: Document txbalancing parameter Tony Nguyen
2023-05-24 11:54 ` [PATCH net-next 0/5][pull request] ice: Support 5 layer Tx scheduler topology Jiri Pirko
2023-05-24 13:25 ` Wilczynski, Michal
2023-05-24 16:26 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2023-05-24 16:59 ` Wilczynski, Michal
2023-05-24 20:02 ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-05-25 7:49 ` Wilczynski, Michal
2023-05-25 15:41 ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-05-26 7:43 ` Wilczynski, Michal
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230524092607.17123289@kernel.org \
--to=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
--cc=lukasz.czapnik@intel.com \
--cc=michal.wilczynski@intel.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.