On 1/13/26 11:27 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote: > On 1/9/26 12:28 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >> From: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> >> >> The driver tries to provision more agg buffers than header buffers >> since multiple agg segments can reuse the same header. The calculation >> / heuristic tries to provide enough pages for 65k of data for each header >> (or 4 frags per header if the result is too big). This calculation is >> currently global to the adapter. If we increase the buffer sizes 8x >> we don't want 8x the amount of memory sitting on the rings. >> Luckily we don't have to fill the rings completely, adjust >> the fill level dynamically in case particular queue has buffers >> larger than the global size. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> >> [pavel: rebase on top of agg_size_fac, assert agg_size_fac] >> Signed-off-by: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]> >> --- >> drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++---- >> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt.c >> b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt.c >> index 8f42885a7c86..137e348d2b9c 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt.c >> @@ -3816,16 +3816,34 @@ static void bnxt_free_rx_rings(struct bnxt *bp) >> } >> } >> >> +static int bnxt_rx_agg_ring_fill_level(struct bnxt *bp, >> + struct bnxt_rx_ring_info *rxr) >> +{ >> + /* User may have chosen larger than default rx_page_size, >> + * we keep the ring sizes uniform and also want uniform amount >> + * of bytes consumed per ring, so cap how much of the rings we fill. >> + */ >> + int fill_level = bp->rx_agg_ring_size; >> + >> + if (rxr->rx_page_size > BNXT_RX_PAGE_SIZE) >> + fill_level /= rxr->rx_page_size / BNXT_RX_PAGE_SIZE; > > According to the check in bnxt_alloc_rx_page_pool() it's theoretically > possible for `rxr->rx_page_size / BNXT_RX_PAGE_SIZE` being zero. If so > the above would crash. > > Side note: this looks like something AI review could/should catch. The > fact it didn't makes me think I'm missing something...
I see the next patch rejects too small `rx_page_size` values; so possibly the better option is to drop the confusing check in bnxt_alloc_rx_page_pool(). /P
