Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC net-next v4 0/9] Add support for per-NAPI config via netlink

[Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@gmail.com>]

On 10/01, Joe Damato wrote:
> Greetings:
> 
> Welcome to RFC v4.
> 
> Very important and significant changes have been made since RFC v3 [1],
> please see the changelog below for details.
> 
> A couple important call outs for this revision for reviewers:
> 
>   1. idpf embeds a napi_struct in an internal data structure and
>      includes an assertion on the size of napi_struct. The maintainers
>      have stated that they think anyone touching napi_struct should update
>      the assertion [2], so I've done this in patch 3. 
> 
>      Even though the assertion has been updated, I've given the
>      cacheline placement of napi_struct within idpf's internals no
>      thought or consideration.
> 
>      Would appreciate other opinions on this; I think idpf should be
>      fixed. It seems unreasonable to me that anyone changing the size of
>      a struct in the core should need to think about cachelines in idpf.

[..]

>   2. This revision seems to work (see below for a full walk through). Is
>      this the behavior we want? Am I missing some use case or some
>      behavioral thing other folks need?

The walk through looks good!


>   3. Re a previous point made by Stanislav regarding "taking over a NAPI
>      ID" when the channel count changes: mlx5 seems to call napi_disable
>      followed by netif_napi_del for the old queues and then calls
>      napi_enable for the new ones. In this RFC, the NAPI ID generation
>      is deferred to napi_enable. This means we won't end up with two of
>      the same NAPI IDs added to the hash at the same time (I am pretty
>      sure).


[..]

>      Can we assume all drivers will napi_disable the old queues before
>      napi_enable the new ones? If yes, we might not need to worry about
>      a NAPI ID takeover function.

With the explicit driver opt-in via netif_napi_add_config, this
shouldn't matter? When somebody gets to converting the drivers that
don't follow this common pattern they'll have to solve the takeover
part :-)