From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (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 66F3223B0 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 14:19:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718029154; cv=none; b=PcupLFaxks1k1wDJqIP2mt0xPTHnc3FxFBF5yao/rcbAXXsoXfvqIECqc+1hfPn1d6lz0cv5aO3oes1KKlf/PZKb+LI6dNibioW72DDgTxRijmYN1zipC+vnzkve8X6sKmmL//AjuFnNlh+EM6NvHHZfNagUQvT1x+d3AV3ZggU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718029154; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Rl2tVPiX9UWvnu+ZPwPmaHdP1YszauJ4RtH4EfVZS/M=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Disposition; b=iJ4k2U5rgdkBHkxZsDLVbF7wv+754fmFyQSeSRpG/f1wJYmBpDO5IADayImfZ5csD5hDNYg/yKXmH3NwF9bAk54jMHPhh4oS+LKXxz/dUauvZC2EhBzLEhX2N2WLzUizpbyNodBubMHHZwm5EdI2uiZKQBtnm/gEJfdgxyrjdWk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=QunuzQWl; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="QunuzQWl" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1718029151; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=5fQYADQiwQp5dfNvEaV5J/jkCAEg3Kh2jQNmcpyXbzo=; b=QunuzQWlwqetj8aCw6ekL2iH4Y7fTqEuiWzqCjyzGsqgqL0G+s4NJxodJw+c/tTYKU7ZTa BTbvHhocgCIQu5UR8O0ViMhAJpsALtxvKZJLf4I9htyWCyN4WVzXL0WaKXDBwCy1pNpBW5 ZMx5/JIAPEsHqLj41eli9SpqE7F27Vw= Received: from mail-ed1-f70.google.com (mail-ed1-f70.google.com [209.85.208.70]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-133-_PGLxkJJMce38WgmCkCjEw-1; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 10:19:09 -0400 X-MC-Unique: _PGLxkJJMce38WgmCkCjEw-1 Received: by mail-ed1-f70.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-57c80b0d272so1000684a12.1 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 07:19:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1718029148; x=1718633948; 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=5fQYADQiwQp5dfNvEaV5J/jkCAEg3Kh2jQNmcpyXbzo=; b=pJI5vHtTtIB3KnuJW10OBAurpT4mTjcDtz0N44OSS3bi5QGanmyxwTosacexwHefzg tq/ZsfCYkh97QFDteNvH0iYIK7sm8oK9jwIwZOwy79VQocKXGcCoROlYSDsJH5PQtt/P f6v8kmlisqYhw3dka/0tls3GqcEegQ/Euz/3yD+g4WZjtTLbqAZqZ6jpgoYt050dVhcV H7NoJ/rXvDI2fvyaYCqyj9kKUGUovCoj9fQi5gHcbDaph9DTyZFsdgVGt2N+X/jwXp4m q+RaYqqMlxnglfOOF/XLcolJlpMM9Roo/wxgzfzs2MssHn5KuzkL/uFIU3EMW09cjwfB It8Q== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVolP9Ktd+UC+mwLLp+QLeOhRURj52fKJspreca89DaJO52RIXQIwxbFBs8qW5UcaS5XdhoWoD/r9mpNyRzKl8tSlQd5DPy2Qa8aRAiRVI= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw310MZVfTmNg0EqCTwkek6GGRFZqZtbxMbZe5isjGQmw2q6FPV brK2Rsp7D0kmgzEbhf6dv9bMiTa6sqgGBMo7pstnzycCc96prkEUtrbuUhKRbk9gcxeFnrSwV/u UEDo9XGY+tEemeRf93sn3MYwQeYysbIaE1HE9VCX4BgC1VIl35MD/oymuPS8QsNzG X-Received: by 2002:a50:cdc1:0:b0:57c:7641:72e2 with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-57c76417319mr3169040a12.30.1718029147745; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 07:19:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHCp3exlBA6B9Bw4Hrp54qJGJT7MsRMusp9B/hD6uoUg1sf4LnZ6GbChe4UfO/h6zYmtLS4hw== X-Received: by 2002:a50:cdc1:0:b0:57c:7641:72e2 with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-57c76417319mr3169012a12.30.1718029147149; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 07:19:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from redhat.com ([2.52.131.243]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-57c828dd0dfsm1807666a12.72.2024.06.10.07.18.59 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 10 Jun 2024 07:19:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 10:18:56 -0400 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Jiri Pirko Cc: Jason Wang , Jason Xing , Heng Qi , davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com, virtualization@lists.linux.dev, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, hawk@kernel.org, john.fastabend@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch net-next] virtio_net: add support for Byte Queue Limits Message-ID: <20240610101346-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20240606020248-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20240607062231-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: virtualization@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 01:30:34PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 12:23:37PM CEST, mst@redhat.com wrote: > >On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 11:57:37AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >> >True. Personally, I would like to just drop orphan mode. But I'm not > >> >sure others are happy with this. > >> > >> How about to do it other way around. I will take a stab at sending patch > >> removing it. If anyone is against and has solid data to prove orphan > >> mode is needed, let them provide those. > > > >Break it with no warning and see if anyone complains? > > This is now what I suggested at all. > > >No, this is not how we handle userspace compatibility, normally. > > Sure. > > Again: > > I would send orphan removal patch containing: > 1) no module options removal. Warn if someone sets it up > 2) module option to disable napi is ignored > 3) orphan mode is removed from code > > There is no breakage. Only, hypotetically performance downgrade in some > hypotetical usecase nobody knows of. Performance is why people use virtio. It's as much a breakage as any other bug. The main difference is, with other types of breakage, they are typically binary and we can not tolerate them at all. A tiny, negligeable performance regression might be tolarable if it brings other benefits. I very much doubt avoiding interrupts is negligeable though. And making code simpler isn't a big benefit, users do not care. > My point was, if someone presents > solid data to prove orphan is needed during the patch review, let's toss > out the patch. > > Makes sense? It's not hypothetical - if anything, it's hypothetical that performance does not regress. And we just got a report from users that see a regression without. So, not really. > > > > >-- > >MST > >