Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH] net: netif_set_real_num_rx_queues may cap num_rx_queues at init time

[John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@intel.com>]

On 10/6/2010 8:07 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 07:52 -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
>> On 10/5/2010 10:45 AM, John Fastabend wrote:
>>> On 10/5/2010 9:34 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 09:08 -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
>>>>> On 10/4/2010 10:35 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> [...]
>>>>>> Why should we keep num_rx_queues > real_num_rx_queues ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If we do not ever need them then we should not keep them I agree.
>>>>> But having netif_set_real_num_rx_queues set something other then
>>>>> 'real_num_rx_queues' does not seem right to me at least. Also
>>>>> netif_set_real_num_tx_queues and netif_set_real_num_rx_queues have
>>>>> different behavior. It would be nice if this weren't the case but
>>>>> they allocate queues in two places.
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> I only did this to satisfy Eric's desire to reduce memory usage.
>>>> However, I believe that there are currently no drivers that dynamically
>>>> increase numbers of RX or TX queues.  Until there are, there is not much
>>>> point in removing this assignment to num_rx_queues.
>>>>
>>>> Ben.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ixgbe increases the real_num_[rx|tx]_queues when FCoE or DCB is enabled.
>>> Also many of the drivers could increase the number of queues if they were
>>> given more interrupt vectors at some point.
>>
>>
>> If I update the handful drivers that use netif_set_real_num_rx_queues()
>> before the netdevice is registered to explicitly set num_rx_queues this
>> would address Eric's concerns and fix drivers that really only want to set
>> real_num_rx_queue.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
> 
> Don't add assignments to num_rx_queues.  If it's useful to increase the
> number of RX queues later then just remove the assignment to
> num_rx_queues from netif_set_real_num_rx_queues() and be done with it.
> The waste of memory is minimal now that we only allocate kobjects for
> real_num_rx_queues.
> 
> Ben.
> 

OK Thanks Ben. I will get a better description on this and resend it.

John.