From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6AFDEB64DD for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2023 13:13:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232192AbjHINNB convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Aug 2023 09:13:01 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48074 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231902AbjHINNA (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Aug 2023 09:13:00 -0400 Received: from rtits2.realtek.com.tw (rtits2.realtek.com [211.75.126.72]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94C942100; Wed, 9 Aug 2023 06:12:59 -0700 (PDT) Authenticated-By: X-SpamFilter-By: ArmorX SpamTrap 5.77 with qID 379DBfAnA009807, This message is accepted by code: ctloc85258 Received: from mail.realtek.com (rtexh36506.realtek.com.tw[172.21.6.27]) by rtits2.realtek.com.tw (8.15.2/2.81/5.90) with ESMTPS id 379DBfAnA009807 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 9 Aug 2023 21:11:41 +0800 Received: from RTEXDAG01.realtek.com.tw (172.21.6.100) by RTEXH36506.realtek.com.tw (172.21.6.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.17; Wed, 9 Aug 2023 21:11:58 +0800 Received: from RTEXMBS04.realtek.com.tw (172.21.6.97) by RTEXDAG01.realtek.com.tw (172.21.6.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.7; Wed, 9 Aug 2023 21:11:57 +0800 Received: from RTEXMBS04.realtek.com.tw ([fe80::e138:e7f1:4709:ff4d]) by RTEXMBS04.realtek.com.tw ([fe80::e138:e7f1:4709:ff4d%5]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.007; Wed, 9 Aug 2023 21:11:57 +0800 From: Hayes Wang To: Jakub Kicinski CC: "Limonciello, Mario" , "edumazet@google.com" , LKML , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "davem@davemloft.net" , "linux-usb@vger.kernel.org" , "pabeni@redhat.com" , "Paul Menzel" Subject: RE: Error 'netif_napi_add_weight() called with weight 256' Thread-Topic: Error 'netif_napi_add_weight() called with weight 256' Thread-Index: AQHZw8h1VlKS4AgmjUKpznAl5+SYmK/Tp70AgAAC4ICACvPXQP//7sWAgANr4sA= Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 13:11:57 +0000 Message-ID: References: <0bfd445a-81f7-f702-08b0-bd5a72095e49@amd.com> <20230731111330.5211e637@kernel.org> <673bc252-2b34-6ef9-1765-9c7cac1e8658@amd.com> <8fcbab1aa2e14262bea79222bf7a4976@realtek.com> <20230807093727.5249f517@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20230807093727.5249f517@kernel.org> Accept-Language: zh-TW, en-US Content-Language: zh-TW X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.22.228.6] x-kse-serverinfo: RTEXDAG01.realtek.com.tw, 9 x-kse-antispam-interceptor-info: fallback x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: fallback Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 X-KSE-AntiSpam-Interceptor-Info: fallback Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org Jakub Kicinski > Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 12:37 AM [...] > > I test our devices on an Embedded system. > > We find the throughput is low. > > And it is caused by the weight. > > Our NAPI function often uses the whole budget. > > Finally, we increase the weight, and the throughput is good. > > Could it possibly be related to handling of aggregation? > Problem must lay somewhere in USB specifics, since as I said > there are 100Gbps devices running fine with budget of 64. I think it depends on the platform. Most of the platforms don't have the same situation. Besides, I think the platform with 100Gbps device may have faster CPU than that one which I test. What would happen, if I set the weight to 256 on the platform which runs well for the weight of 64? Doesn't it only influence the slow platform? Best Regards, Hayes