All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Cc: Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlopek@intel.com>,
	<intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	<horms@kernel.org>, <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>,
	Lukasz Czapnik <lukasz.czapnik@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 4/5] ice: Add tx_scheduling_layers devlink param
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 15:07:17 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240222150717.627209a9@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <df7b6859-ff8f-4489-97b2-6fd0b95fff58@intel.com>

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 14:25:21 +0100 Mateusz Polchlopek wrote:
> >> This is kind of proprietary param similar to number of which were shot
> >> down for mlx5 in past. Jakub?  
> > 
> > I remain somewhat confused about what this does.
> > Specifically IIUC the problem is that the radix of each node is
> > limited, so we need to start creating multi-layer hierarchies
> > if we want a higher radix. Or in the "5-layer mode" the radix
> > is automatically higher?  
> 
> Basically, switching from 9 to 5 layers topology allows us to have 512 
> leaves instead of 8 leaves which improves performance. I will add this 
> information to the commit message and Documentation too, when we get an 
> ACK for devlink parameter.

Sounds fine. Please update the doc to focus on the radix, rather than
the layers. Layers are not so important to the user. And maybe give an
example of things which won't be possible with 5-layer config.

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..

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Cc: Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlopek@intel.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, Lukasz Czapnik <lukasz.czapnik@intel.com>,
	intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, horms@kernel.org,
	przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 4/5] ice: Add tx_scheduling_layers devlink param
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 15:07:17 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240222150717.627209a9@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <df7b6859-ff8f-4489-97b2-6fd0b95fff58@intel.com>

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 14:25:21 +0100 Mateusz Polchlopek wrote:
> >> This is kind of proprietary param similar to number of which were shot
> >> down for mlx5 in past. Jakub?  
> > 
> > I remain somewhat confused about what this does.
> > Specifically IIUC the problem is that the radix of each node is
> > limited, so we need to start creating multi-layer hierarchies
> > if we want a higher radix. Or in the "5-layer mode" the radix
> > is automatically higher?  
> 
> Basically, switching from 9 to 5 layers topology allows us to have 512 
> leaves instead of 8 leaves which improves performance. I will add this 
> information to the commit message and Documentation too, when we get an 
> ACK for devlink parameter.

Sounds fine. Please update the doc to focus on the radix, rather than
the layers. Layers are not so important to the user. And maybe give an
example of things which won't be possible with 5-layer config.

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..

  reply	other threads:[~2024-02-22 23:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-02-19 10:05 [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 0/5] ice: Support 5 layer Tx scheduler topology Mateusz Polchlopek
2024-02-19 10:05 ` Mateusz Polchlopek
2024-02-19 10:05 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v1 1/5] ice: Support 5 layer topology Mateusz Polchlopek
2024-02-19 10:05   ` Mateusz Polchlopek
2024-02-19 10:16   ` Mateusz Polchlopek
2024-02-19 10:16     ` Mateusz Polchlopek
2024-02-19 10:05 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 2/5] ice: Adjust the VSI/Aggregator layers Mateusz Polchlopek
2024-02-19 10:05   ` Mateusz Polchlopek
2024-02-19 10:05 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 3/5] ice: Enable switching default Tx scheduler topology Mateusz Polchlopek
2024-02-19 10:05   ` Mateusz Polchlopek
2024-02-19 10:05 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 4/5] ice: Add tx_scheduling_layers devlink param Mateusz Polchlopek
2024-02-19 10:05   ` Mateusz Polchlopek
2024-02-19 12:37   ` Jiri Pirko
2024-02-19 12:37     ` Jiri Pirko
2024-02-19 13:33     ` Przemek Kitszel
2024-02-19 13:33       ` Przemek Kitszel
2024-02-19 17:15       ` Jiri Pirko
2024-02-19 17:15         ` Jiri Pirko
2024-02-21 23:38     ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-02-21 23:38       ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-02-22 13:25       ` Mateusz Polchlopek
2024-02-22 13:25         ` Mateusz Polchlopek
2024-02-22 23:07         ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2024-02-22 23:07           ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-02-23  9:45           ` Jiri Pirko
2024-02-23  9:45             ` Jiri Pirko
2024-02-23 14:27             ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-02-23 14:27               ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-02-25  7:18               ` Jiri Pirko
2024-02-25  7:18                 ` Jiri Pirko
2024-02-27  2:37                 ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-02-27  2:37                   ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-02-27 12:17                   ` Jiri Pirko
2024-02-27 12:17                     ` Jiri Pirko
2024-02-27 13:05                     ` Przemek Kitszel
2024-02-27 13:05                       ` Przemek Kitszel
2024-02-27 15:39                       ` Jiri Pirko
2024-02-27 15:39                         ` Jiri Pirko
2024-02-27 15:41                       ` Andrew Lunn
2024-02-27 15:41                         ` Andrew Lunn
2024-02-27 16:04                         ` Jiri Pirko
2024-02-27 16:04                           ` Jiri Pirko
2024-02-27 20:38                           ` Andrew Lunn
2024-02-27 20:38                             ` Andrew Lunn
2024-02-19 10:05 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 5/5] ice: Document tx_scheduling_layers parameter Mateusz Polchlopek
2024-02-19 10:05   ` Mateusz Polchlopek

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20240222150717.627209a9@kernel.org \
    --to=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=horms@kernel.org \
    --cc=intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org \
    --cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
    --cc=lukasz.czapnik@intel.com \
    --cc=mateusz.polchlopek@intel.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.