From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>
To: Ethan Zhao <ethan.zhao@oracle.com>
Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>,
"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>,
shannon nelson <shannon.nelson@intel.com>,
Carolyn Wyborny <carolyn.wyborny@intel.com>,
"Skidmore, Donald C" <donald.c.skidmore@intel.com>,
Bruce W Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com>,
John Ronciak <john.ronciak@intel.com>,
Mitch Williams <mitch.a.williams@intel.com>,
intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>,
Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ethan Zhao <ethan.kernel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ixgbe: take online CPU number as MQ max limit when alloc_etherdev_mq()
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 09:46:37 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKgT0UeiEW21E7A9fnt_BUCppopns-E2w1WbwF-8A6sCZkJ8rQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1463118995-31763-1-git-send-email-ethan.zhao@oracle.com>
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Ethan Zhao <ethan.zhao@oracle.com> wrote:
> Allocating 64 Tx/Rx as default doesn't benefit perfomrnace when less
> CPUs were assigned. especially when DCB is enabled, so we should take
> num_online_cpus() as top limit, and aslo to make sure every TC has
> at least one queue, take the MAX_TRAFFIC_CLASS as bottom limit of queues
> number.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ethan Zhao <ethan.zhao@oracle.com>
What is the harm in allowing the user to specify up to 64 queues if
they want to? Also what is your opinion based on? In the case of RSS
traffic the upper limit is only 16 on older NICs, but last I knew the
latest X550 can support more queues for RSS. Have you only been
testing on older NICs or did you test on the latest hardware as well?
If you want to control the number of queues allocated in a given
configuration you should look at the code over in the ixgbe_lib.c, not
ixgbe_main.c. All you are doing with this patch is denying the user
choice with this change as they then are not allowed to set more
queues. Even if they find your decision was wrong for their
configuration.
- Alex
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>
To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] ixgbe: take online CPU number as MQ max limit when alloc_etherdev_mq()
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 09:46:37 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKgT0UeiEW21E7A9fnt_BUCppopns-E2w1WbwF-8A6sCZkJ8rQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1463118995-31763-1-git-send-email-ethan.zhao@oracle.com>
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Ethan Zhao <ethan.zhao@oracle.com> wrote:
> Allocating 64 Tx/Rx as default doesn't benefit perfomrnace when less
> CPUs were assigned. especially when DCB is enabled, so we should take
> num_online_cpus() as top limit, and aslo to make sure every TC has
> at least one queue, take the MAX_TRAFFIC_CLASS as bottom limit of queues
> number.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ethan Zhao <ethan.zhao@oracle.com>
What is the harm in allowing the user to specify up to 64 queues if
they want to? Also what is your opinion based on? In the case of RSS
traffic the upper limit is only 16 on older NICs, but last I knew the
latest X550 can support more queues for RSS. Have you only been
testing on older NICs or did you test on the latest hardware as well?
If you want to control the number of queues allocated in a given
configuration you should look at the code over in the ixgbe_lib.c, not
ixgbe_main.c. All you are doing with this patch is denying the user
choice with this change as they then are not allowed to set more
queues. Even if they find your decision was wrong for their
configuration.
- Alex
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-13 16:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-13 5:56 [PATCH] ixgbe: take online CPU number as MQ max limit when alloc_etherdev_mq() Ethan Zhao
2016-05-13 5:56 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Ethan Zhao
2016-05-13 12:52 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2016-05-13 12:52 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Sergei Shtylyov
2016-05-16 5:38 ` ethan zhao
2016-05-16 5:38 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " ethan zhao
2016-05-13 16:46 ` Alexander Duyck [this message]
2016-05-13 16:46 ` Alexander Duyck
2016-05-16 2:59 ` ethan zhao
2016-05-16 2:59 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " ethan zhao
2016-05-16 16:09 ` Alexander Duyck
2016-05-16 16:09 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Alexander Duyck
2016-05-16 17:14 ` John Fastabend
2016-05-16 17:14 ` John Fastabend
2016-05-17 9:00 ` ethan zhao
2016-05-17 9:00 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " ethan zhao
2016-05-17 15:58 ` Alexander Duyck
2016-05-17 15:58 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Alexander Duyck
2016-05-16 20:58 ` Jeff Kirsher
2016-05-16 20:58 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jeff Kirsher
2016-05-16 20:58 ` Jeff Kirsher
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=CAKgT0UeiEW21E7A9fnt_BUCppopns-E2w1WbwF-8A6sCZkJ8rQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=alexander.duyck@gmail.com \
--cc=bruce.w.allan@intel.com \
--cc=carolyn.wyborny@intel.com \
--cc=donald.c.skidmore@intel.com \
--cc=ethan.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=ethan.zhao@oracle.com \
--cc=intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org \
--cc=jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com \
--cc=jesse.brandeburg@intel.com \
--cc=john.ronciak@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mitch.a.williams@intel.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shannon.nelson@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.