All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Cc: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlopek@intel.com>,
	intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	horms@kernel.org, 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: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 21:38:01 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <332882f9-f23c-4528-9582-51e9aea49a92@lunn.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Zd4IH1XUhC92zaVP@nanopsycho>

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 05:04:47PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 04:41:52PM CET, andrew@lunn.ch wrote:
> >> What if it would not be unique, should they then proceed to add generic
> >> (other word would be "common") param, and make the other driver/s use
> >> it? Without deprecating the old method ofc.
> >
> >If it is useful, somebody else will copy it and it will become
> >common. If nobody copies it, its probably not useful :-)
> >
> >A lot of what we do in networking comes from standard. Its the
> >standards which gives us interoperability. Also, there is the saying,
> >form follows function. There are only so many ways you can implement
> >the same thing.
> >
> >Is anybody truly building unique hardware, whos form somehow does not
> >follow function and is yet still standards compliant? More likely,
> >they are just the first, and others will copy or re-invent it sooner
> >or later.
> 
> Wait, standard in protocol sense is completely parallel to the hw/fw
> implementations. They may be (and in reality they are) a lots of
> tunables to tweak specific hw/fw internals. So modern nics are very
> unique. Still providing the same inputs and outputs, protocol-wise.

I think there is a general trickle down of technologies. What is top
of the line now, because normal everyday in 5 - 10 years time. Think
of a top of the line 10G Ethernet from 10 years ago. Is its design
that different to what you get integrated into today's SoC?  Are the
same or similar tunables from 10 year old top the line NICs also in
todays everyday SoCs?

Every PC is going to be an AI PC, if you believe the market hype at
the moment. But don't you think every PC will also have a network
processor of some sort in 5 - 10 years, derived from today network
processor. It will just be another tile in the SoC, next to the AI
tile, the GPU tile, and the CPU tiles. My guess would be, those
tunables in todays hardware will trickle down into those tiles in 5-10
years because they have been shown to be useful, they work, lets
re-use what we have.

       Andrew




WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Cc: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>,
	Lukasz Czapnik <lukasz.czapnik@intel.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org,
	horms@kernel.org,
	Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlopek@intel.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 4/5] ice: Add tx_scheduling_layers devlink param
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 21:38:01 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <332882f9-f23c-4528-9582-51e9aea49a92@lunn.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Zd4IH1XUhC92zaVP@nanopsycho>

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 05:04:47PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 04:41:52PM CET, andrew@lunn.ch wrote:
> >> What if it would not be unique, should they then proceed to add generic
> >> (other word would be "common") param, and make the other driver/s use
> >> it? Without deprecating the old method ofc.
> >
> >If it is useful, somebody else will copy it and it will become
> >common. If nobody copies it, its probably not useful :-)
> >
> >A lot of what we do in networking comes from standard. Its the
> >standards which gives us interoperability. Also, there is the saying,
> >form follows function. There are only so many ways you can implement
> >the same thing.
> >
> >Is anybody truly building unique hardware, whos form somehow does not
> >follow function and is yet still standards compliant? More likely,
> >they are just the first, and others will copy or re-invent it sooner
> >or later.
> 
> Wait, standard in protocol sense is completely parallel to the hw/fw
> implementations. They may be (and in reality they are) a lots of
> tunables to tweak specific hw/fw internals. So modern nics are very
> unique. Still providing the same inputs and outputs, protocol-wise.

I think there is a general trickle down of technologies. What is top
of the line now, because normal everyday in 5 - 10 years time. Think
of a top of the line 10G Ethernet from 10 years ago. Is its design
that different to what you get integrated into today's SoC?  Are the
same or similar tunables from 10 year old top the line NICs also in
todays everyday SoCs?

Every PC is going to be an AI PC, if you believe the market hype at
the moment. But don't you think every PC will also have a network
processor of some sort in 5 - 10 years, derived from today network
processor. It will just be another tile in the SoC, next to the AI
tile, the GPU tile, and the CPU tiles. My guess would be, those
tunables in todays hardware will trickle down into those tiles in 5-10
years because they have been shown to be useful, they work, lets
re-use what we have.

       Andrew




  reply	other threads:[~2024-02-27 20:37 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
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 [this message]
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=332882f9-f23c-4528-9582-51e9aea49a92@lunn.ch \
    --to=andrew@lunn.ch \
    --cc=horms@kernel.org \
    --cc=intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org \
    --cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --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.