On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 17:43:08 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote: > Please allow me to put a few high level questions together, to both > underline them as most critical, and keep the thread focused. > > On 8/30/24 03:20, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > This 'binding' has the same meaning as 'binding' in TCP ZC? :( > > I hope we can agree that good naming is difficult. I thought we agreed > on such naming in the past week’s discussion. The term 'binding' is > already used in the networking stack in many places to identify > different things (i.e. device tree, socket, netfilter.. ). The name > prefix avoids any ambiguity and I think this a good name, but if you > have any better suggestions, this change should be trivial.
Ack. Maybe we can cut down the number of ambiguous nouns elsewhere: maybe call net_shaper_info -> net_shaper ? maybe net_shaper_data -> net_shaper_hierarchy ? > > I've been wondering if we shouldn't move this lock > > directly into net_device and combine it with the RSS lock. > > Create a "per-netdev" lock, instead of having multiple disparate > > mutexes which are hard to allocate? > > The above looks like a quite unrelated refactor and one I think it will > not be worthy. The complexity of locking code in this series is very > limited, and self-encapsulated. Different locks for different things > increases scalability. Possibly we will not see much contention on the > same device, but some years ago we did not think there would be much > contention on RTNL... We need to do this, anyway. Let me do it myself, then. > Additionally, if we use a per _network device_ lock, future expansion of > the core to support devlink objects will be more difficult. You parse out the binding you can store a pointer to the right mutex. > [about separate handle from shaper_info arguments] > > Wouldn't it be convenient to store the handle in the "info" > > object? AFAIU the handle is forever for an info, so no risk of it > > being out of sync… > > Was that way a couple of iterations ago. Jiri explicitly asked for the > separation, I asked for confirmation and nobody objected. Could you link to that? I must have not read it. You can keep it wrapped in a struct *_handle, that's fine. But it can live inside the shaper object. > Which if the 2 options is acceptable from both of you? > > [about queue limit and channel reconf] > > we probably want to trim the queue shapers on channel reconfig, > > then, too? :( > > what about exposing to the drivers an helper alike: > > net_shaper_notify_delete(binding, handle); > > that tells the core the shaper at the given handle just went away in the > H/W? The driver will call it in the queue deletion helper, and such > helper could be later on used more generically, i.e. for vf/devlink port > deletion. We can either prevent disabling queues which have shapers attached, or auto-removing the shapers. No preference on that. But put the callback in the core, please, netif_set_real_num_rx_queues() ? Why not? > > It's not just for introspection, it's also for the core to do > > error checking. > > Actually, in the previous discussions it was never mentioned to use > capabilities to fully centralize the error checking. > > This really looks like another feature, and can easily be added in a > second time (say, a follow-up series), with no functionality loss. > > I (or anybody else) can’t keep adding new features at every iteration. > At some point we need to draw a line, and we should agree that the scope > of this activity has already expanded a lot in the past year. I would > like to draw such a line here. I can help you. Just tell me which parts you want me to take care of.
