Re: Questions about the chelsio/cxgb3 Driver - TX Stall

[Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>]

On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 21:19:57 +0800 Niigee Mashook wrote:
> 1. Why is not using Tx completion interrupts considered better?
> One reason I can think of is that reducing interrupts to the CPU can
> improve overall performance by allowing the CPU to handle packets more
> efficiently. However, I am concerned that using skb_orphan might cause
> issues like invalidating autocork and leading to bufferbloat(TSQ's
> functionality), which could negatively impact performance. Would this
> not cause a performance regression?

Indeed, this method will have negative effects on any backpressure
mechanism. It's an old driver 🤷️ The perf benefit comes as you say
from fewer IRQs and very good batching.

> 2. The comment specifically mentions skb_orphan, and not using it
> would cause a Tx stall. Why is that?
> My understanding is that when sk->sk_sndbuf is small, it might allow
> only the first packet to be sent. Without skb_orphan, after sending
> the first packet, sk->sk_sndbuf becomes equal to sk_wmem_alloc, which
> would prevent subsequent packets from being sent. As a result,
> sk_wmem_alloc would never decrease, leading to a Tx stall. Is this
> correct?

Yes, pretty much.