On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 9:46 PM Jacob Keller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 1/26/2026 9:53 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 12:40:15PM -0500, Brian Vazquez wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 11:24 AM Andrew Lunn <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 02:46:24PM +0000, Brian Vazquez wrote: > >>>> The code uses the vidx for the IRQ name but that doesn't match ethtool > >>>> reporting or netdev naming, this makes it hard to tune the device and > >>>> associate queues with IRQs. Sequentially requesting irqs starting from > >>>> '0' makes the output consistent. > >>>> > >>>> Before: > >>>> > >>>> ethtool -L eth1 tx 1 combined 3 > >>>> > >>>> grep . /proc/irq/*/*idpf*/../smp_affinity_list > >>>> /proc/irq/67/idpf-Mailbox-0/../smp_affinity_list:0-55,112-167 > >>>> /proc/irq/68/idpf-eth1-TxRx-1/../smp_affinity_list:0 > >>>> /proc/irq/70/idpf-eth1-TxRx-3/../smp_affinity_list:1 > >>>> /proc/irq/71/idpf-eth1-TxRx-4/../smp_affinity_list:2 > >>>> /proc/irq/72/idpf-eth1-Tx-5/../smp_affinity_list:3 > >>>> > >>>> ethtool -S eth1 | grep -v ': 0' > >>>> NIC statistics: > >>>> tx_q-0_pkts: 1002 > >>>> tx_q-1_pkts: 2679 > >>>> tx_q-2_pkts: 1113 > >>>> tx_q-3_pkts: 1192 <----- tx_q-3 vs idpf-eth1-Tx-5 > >>>> rx_q-0_pkts: 1143 > >>>> rx_q-1_pkts: 3172 > >>>> rx_q-2_pkts: 1074 > >>>> > >>>> After: > >>>> > >>>> ethtool -L eth1 tx 1 combined 3 > >>>> > >>>> grep . /proc/irq/*/*idpf*/../smp_affinity_list > >>>> > >>>> /proc/irq/67/idpf-Mailbox-0/../smp_affinity_list:0-55,112-167 > >>>> /proc/irq/68/idpf-eth1-TxRx-0/../smp_affinity_list:0 > >>>> /proc/irq/70/idpf-eth1-TxRx-1/../smp_affinity_list:1 > >>>> /proc/irq/71/idpf-eth1-TxRx-2/../smp_affinity_list:2 > >>>> /proc/irq/72/idpf-eth1-Tx-3/../smp_affinity_list:3 > >>>> > >>>> ethtool -S eth1 | grep -v ': 0' > >>>> NIC statistics: > >>>> tx_q-0_pkts: 118 > >>>> tx_q-1_pkts: 134 > >>>> tx_q-2_pkts: 228 > >>>> tx_q-3_pkts: 138 <--- tx_q-3 matches idpf-eth1-Tx-3 > >>>> rx_q-0_pkts: 111 > >>>> rx_q-1_pkts: 366 > >>>> rx_q-2_pkts: 120 > >>> > >>> Are there any ABI issues here? > >> > >> The patch doesn't change the format, it just fixes the numbering in > >> the name to make it consistent with other reporting tools. It > >> shouldn't break any library. > > > > But is the numbering part of the ABI? > > > > Making a comment about ABI in the commit message makes it clear it is > > something you have considered, and you have decided it is not an > > issue. If there is no such comment, reviewers probably should ask. > > > > Andrew > > I don't see how an application can depend on the name if it can't > correlate it to anything meaningful. The change fixes the ID values used > so that they *do* correlate. If an application was previously assuming > it correlated to the queue ID, it would incorrect associate the IRQ with > the wrong queue.
Agree, this mismatch caused me some surprises, we can not keep a broken ABI (which has been broken by accident)
