From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: [RFC] multiqueue changes Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:15:43 +0100 Message-ID: <20091029211543.GA3036@ami.dom.local> References: <4ACD9255.4020008@gmail.com> <20091008090344.GA7409@ff.dom.local> <20091008120039.GA8691@ff.dom.local> <4AE87EEE.4020703@trash.net> <20091028212337.GA3218@ami.dom.local> <4AE9C4C3.9040503@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Eric Dumazet , "David S. Miller" , Linux Netdev List To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Received: from mail-bw0-f227.google.com ([209.85.218.227]:39186 "EHLO mail-bw0-f227.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755633AbZJ2VPo (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:15:44 -0400 Received: by bwz27 with SMTP id 27so2816595bwz.21 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:15:48 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AE9C4C3.9040503@trash.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 05:37:23PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: ... > Well, we do need both values for supporting changes to the actually > used numbers of TX queues. If I understood Dave's explanation correctly, > this is also what's intended. It also doesn't seem unreasonable > what bnx2 is doing. Exactly. With a growing number of cores, both available and powered off, these values will be soon treated more carefully than now. > But getting back to the problem Eric reported - so you're suggesting > that bnx2.c should also adjust num_tx_queues in case the hardware > doesn't support multiqueue? That seems reasonable as well. Currently, declaring num_tx_queues with alloc_netdev_mq() looks like too soon for some drivers. It seems they should be able to do it separately later during the .probe. There is a question if .ndo_open should be considered too. Jarek P.