> -----Original Message-----
> From: Intel-wired-lan <[email protected]> On Behalf Of
> Kaminski, Pawel
> Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 1:26 AM
> To: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
> Cc: Kitszel, Przemyslaw <[email protected]>; intel-wired-
> [email protected]; Wilczynski, Michal <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v1] ice: Add support for 
> devlink
> loopback param.
> 
> On 2023-12-01 20:37, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Fri,  1 Dec 2023 15:59:49 -0800 Pawel Kaminski wrote:
> >> Add support for devlink loopback param. Supported values are
> >> "enabled", "disabled" and "prioritized". Default configuration is set to
> "enabled.
> >>
> >> By default loopback traffic BW is locked to PF configured BW.
> >
> > First off - hairpin-bandwidth or some such would be a much better name.
> > Second - you must explain every devlink param in Documentation/
> >
> > Also admission ctrl vs prioritizing sounds like different knobs.
> 
> While at certain abstraction level I agree, in my opinion it is not worth 
> here to
> divide this to separate knobs, since underlying logic (FW) doesn't follow that
> anyways. It is driver specific and extremely unlikely to change in the future.
> Hopefully next gen card will not need this knob at all.
> 
> >> HW is
> >> capable of higher speeds on loopback traffic. Loopback param set to
> >> "prioritized" enables HW BW prioritization for VF to VF traffic,
> >> effectively increasing BW between VFs. Applicable to 8x10G and 4x25G
> >> cards.
> >
> > Not very clear what this means...
> > So the VFs are Tx bandwidth limited to link speed.
> > How does the device know it can admit extra traffic?
> > Presumably this doesn't affect rates set by devlink rate?
> 
> I will rewrite the description and explanation in v2 and include documentation
> change.
> 
> Thank you,
> PK
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-wired-lan mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan


Tested-by: Rafal Romanowski <[email protected]>


Reply via email to