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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).