From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-lj1-f173.google.com (mail-lj1-f173.google.com [209.85.208.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF27B8833 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2024 07:18:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.173 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708845487; cv=none; b=XX8foVPv70Zk073eW10P+5LDDSPpTywieyxd64rvGug7y2X6ufUUWI7ee6/4uLXG3uKYgvDSjSX0g2kV5aNWO7hKSfG6TayeNVox1L9xlnDS+yTFLDKOSiNAZVu0OW208GIEvKjb3HoSLziX5XOzCXIyoiylqxNAJpV42OfMn84= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708845487; c=relaxed/simple; bh=zZeR+n7PWvpkQ2JHycsa1jX0C5jjNU85zAeYoCrL7/E=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=BMbxH5WmnPnMtH5khTbUkBJw6Vs3QuxJ4Ix7OwPRsuGtxnOEVx3r+K9g6FK/FsOHUFOAK3tl85SbskCA0AeLPt5OWJEL+dGUrfkLdJ/kJNSo86ZHaf8z38zcTlAikt1uOsRbz6Pcb4CzZceMHru9+bvMr8VZ/m1oIQy4xkcb7DE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=resnulli.us; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=resnulli.us; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=resnulli-us.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@resnulli-us.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b=e+HRpC9l; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.173 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=resnulli.us Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=resnulli.us Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=resnulli-us.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@resnulli-us.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b="e+HRpC9l" Received: by mail-lj1-f173.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2d23d301452so29462171fa.1 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2024 23:18:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=resnulli-us.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1708845483; x=1709450283; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=PrE6SPjvHEFxjwPlVIy+3LIJdPdKbmsIWC5aSbnqvCA=; b=e+HRpC9lSCGPhJR3647j79z1VEilhRzZcX/hs2XXyW6MFsgXxVCScPypGOSoVsoA1s KzY3ILSJVwRoKL2R2L6NLELohEWJKkC9t5QzbIm/Do13qAsNRwSbifsWQ9Dlc+1H+lYi j+T1Zm02+KOpbgAARIrjuVSqBRBuZvfyn9qhqtpx5VDOTOlpFM5M0o2PcrOp3ZejaUE+ HE2zN1Xlo0muITdtar6YmpUm56fbSjO3rhH9LGz7gEJjtyiPgmSB1SqcxnnoJeZawXvU LU1AYrQDWNgz+W9n03AkbjomPWk4s4GHXzijwTKCd6798KX5l9Xj2qKhiOcjazodFyFm 8Rvw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1708845483; x=1709450283; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=PrE6SPjvHEFxjwPlVIy+3LIJdPdKbmsIWC5aSbnqvCA=; b=RLKf8ASp/vaDA+v07Ym+x8UDjghHJiabiBs3cOClIUqvOAV08A3i2DBcuFq/vExrnd v03C1fvL0ZIu0Cx+I5ME0XF39gXBY7msO1ipS9vV0i69RWahTcjKNpxy3G0VeZ+o+nPE X9TWLKxPTRDIwAk3eR5NvZAoORebQm40qRMMGd2eM7HKh634sH3Z25BaRXzt2IN61yNh QmhcuJM6IT8dXeC5MUqXbFokWS7Vgoh1TgmsfRrDnkbIA3hgeuLlsUsMe9EO+wF6Lyoz nddaJ1tEstqs/22WOHHs90Z96aUEkxia4CCs6N/0F3vwmlDEMLmuDpLfS3GhyTBJeOnt mrtw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWY46AoIN4Y261USjUyFZ3XXLRSX34lleWZdAXLujyo5OC88JQEEzSVFKoni5KOvusvm8x5lOciF9C+EDqkNlYk/Dhwh3Ux X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yxoj62arZh+ZdMBMulP/mUaGL32TsitqhmPH/WqUMeqgvohWgIC tuFwzrrXCGZUMtdm+yKPD4FtcFQalJj9tcCshT3APU00Sqnum6J3hJ/Fcs27OnQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGcbdy4Bs2kvvhSFmFEX1zM6pEjLy9i+beyz5COb8QRME+qrUAGr7Ggv7xa/c46aE3AhjgdOg== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:2201:0:b0:2d2:6c74:58d6 with SMTP id i1-20020a2e2201000000b002d26c7458d6mr1976900lji.44.1708845482789; Sat, 24 Feb 2024 23:18:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([86.61.181.4]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v6-20020a5d6786000000b0033dd4783058sm204275wru.9.2024.02.24.23.18.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 24 Feb 2024 23:18:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2024 08:18:00 +0100 From: Jiri Pirko To: Jakub Kicinski 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: References: <20240219100555.7220-1-mateusz.polchlopek@intel.com> <20240219100555.7220-5-mateusz.polchlopek@intel.com> <20240221153805.20fbaf47@kernel.org> <20240222150717.627209a9@kernel.org> <20240223062757.788e686d@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-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240223062757.788e686d@kernel.org> Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 03:27:57PM CET, kuba@kernel.org wrote: >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. No, I don't mind the policy. Up to you. Makes sense to me. I'm just saying it would be great to have this written down so everyone can easily tell which kind of param is and is not acceptable. > >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. I don't have anything solid in mind, I would have to look it up. But there is certainly quite big amount of uncertainties among my colleagues to jundge is some param would or would not be acceptable to you. That's why I believe it would save a lot of people time to write the policy down in details, with examples, etc. Could you please? Thanks!