From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23F237D413 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 14:27:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708698479; cv=none; b=KuO43n9+z2V7qovUK4qoVd9hto2alJ1rAOeNohlJXcali7rCSTxggppj9X+AnVGx1bdMLYVwo/ihpYLDBJC9MV0OWYeKPOPRl0+fB/HWbaExISb6kHSir26XjPVm0E3ica6kh006rsZBzemreVIh2UR0WWTlLOoDHwuHV/ftU0g= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708698479; c=relaxed/simple; bh=dUmWQ9n7sIkmFlhrGkOwc5gWZDmdaEyboZBntzW4NCA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=WS7LDyFPzhpvuBdswT9n+EOPAifPQXYmjXYld0t4gFRUgiHSpRO8f9Pc6IkLkR0GXHRmpkWTgaIcXaQ70wluaVIlAjz/Kz2N3Nc9srG2MhRPkO+tfxHtKpgIYuM9mTYO0WzZl7PXD+bLI4f3R2jvVK2SLJzmyriB1yn73xFOpck= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=OZiOUqQb; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="OZiOUqQb" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3D761C433C7; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 14:27:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1708698478; bh=dUmWQ9n7sIkmFlhrGkOwc5gWZDmdaEyboZBntzW4NCA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=OZiOUqQbiTzJhC4dRHtzLn3RJK5XLUqNdWgPFw8q92Ju9AwDwLcEzii9k4FzGpndb ZNMQCIkQ0arvoOv3HfYqBhVvbnAnYZwC4NRKgHaY6tCf31tHEyPS4XM9yehTpXs9Ap kJtuYwlEChOKtOy86qGFE6GcoUfpRaMoGkvSGFiPq9CKQCbW/dbzChIArFjQW5YMLx 2B7avkBHfIw1lAK6vRtZ1VcutYZx3pZ8rq6VJWRj3dIVTOAa1KrYfkJdODze/EvZCa AManKNhaPZ2qqjJYgyAtHrEkxw7MqhpYy2aSzjwEEl6OA5QhIfIECVmIx+KK7PXTsr Sg023Gj/g7yog== Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 06:27:57 -0800 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Jiri Pirko Cc: Mateusz Polchlopek , intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, horms@kernel.org, przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com, Lukasz Czapnik Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 4/5] ice: Add tx_scheduling_layers devlink param Message-ID: <20240223062757.788e686d@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20240219100555.7220-1-mateusz.polchlopek@intel.com> <20240219100555.7220-5-mateusz.polchlopek@intel.com> <20240221153805.20fbaf47@kernel.org> <20240222150717.627209a9@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 10:45:01 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Jiri, I'm not aware of any other devices with this sort of trade off. >> We shouldn't add the param if either: >> - this can be changed dynamically as user instantiates rate limiters; >> - we know other devices have similar needs. >> If neither of those is true, param seems fine to me.. > > Where is this policy documented? If not, could you please? Let's make > this policy clear for now and for the future. Because you think it's good as a policy or because not so much? Both of the points are a judgment call, at least from upstream perspective since we're working with very limited information. So enshrining this as a "policy" is not very practical. Do you recall any specific param that got rejected from mlx5? Y'all were allowed to add the eq sizing params, which I think is not going to be mlx5-only for long. Otherwise I only remember cases where I'd try to push people to use the resource API, which IMO is better for setting limits and delegating resources.