Re: [PATCH net-next 5/5] netdev-genl: Support setting per-NAPI config values

Jakub Kicinski
2024-09-04T23:54:19Z

On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:40:41 -0700 Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > I think what you are proposing seems fine; I'm just working out the
> > implementation details and making sure I understand before sending
> > another revision.
>
> What if instead of an extra storage index in UAPI, we make napi_id persistent?
> Then we can keep using napi_id as a user-facing number for the configuration.
>
> Having a stable napi_id would also be super useful for the epoll setup so you
> don't have to match old/invalid ids to the new ones on device reset.

that'd be nice, initially I thought that we have some drivers that have
multiple instances of NAPI enabled for a single "index", but I don't
see such drivers now.

> In the code, we can keep the same idea with napi_storage in netdev and
> ask drivers to provide storage id, but keep that id internal.
>
> The only complication with that is napi_hash_add/napi_hash_del that
> happen in netif_napi_add_weight. So for the devices that allocate
> new napi before removing the old ones (most devices?), we'd have to add
> some new netif_napi_takeover(old_napi, new_napi) to remove the
> old napi_id from the hash and reuse it in the new one.
>
> So for mlx5, the flow would look like the following:
>
> - mlx5e_safe_switch_params
> - mlx5e_open_channels
> - netif_napi_add(new_napi)
> - adds napi with 'ephemeral' napi id
> - mlx5e_switch_priv_channels
> - mlx5e_deactivate_priv_channels
> - napi_disable(old_napi)
> - netif_napi_del(old_napi) - this frees the old napi_id
> - mlx5e_activate_priv_channels
> - mlx5e_activate_channels
> - mlx5e_activate_channel
> - netif_napi_takeover(old_napi is gone, so probably take id from napi_storage?)
> - if napi is not hashed - safe to reuse?
> - napi_enable
>
> This is a bit ugly because we still have random napi ids during reset, but
> is not super complicated implementation-wise. We can eventually improve
> the above by splitting netif_napi_add_weight into two steps: allocate and
> activate (to do the napi_id allocation & hashing). Thoughts?

The "takeover" would be problematic for drivers which free old NAPI
before allocating new one (bnxt?). But splitting the two steps sounds
pretty clean. We can add a helper to mark NAPI as "driver will
explicitly list/hash later", and have the driver call a new helper
which takes storage ID and lists the NAPI in the hash.