On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 04:29:37PM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > On 10/01, Joe Damato wrote: [...] > > 2. This revision seems to work (see below for a full walk through). Is > > this the behavior we want? Am I missing some use case or some > > behavioral thing other folks need? > > The walk through looks good! Thanks for taking a look. > > 3. Re a previous point made by Stanislav regarding "taking over a NAPI > > ID" when the channel count changes: mlx5 seems to call napi_disable > > followed by netif_napi_del for the old queues and then calls > > napi_enable for the new ones. In this RFC, the NAPI ID generation > > is deferred to napi_enable. This means we won't end up with two of > > the same NAPI IDs added to the hash at the same time (I am pretty > > sure). > > > [..] > > > Can we assume all drivers will napi_disable the old queues before > > napi_enable the new ones? If yes, we might not need to worry about > > a NAPI ID takeover function. > > With the explicit driver opt-in via netif_napi_add_config, this > shouldn't matter? When somebody gets to converting the drivers that > don't follow this common pattern they'll have to solve the takeover > part :-) That is true; that's a good point. I'll let the RFC hang out on the list for another day or two just to give Jakub time to catch up on his mails ;) but if you all agree... this might be ready to be resent as a PATCH instead of an RFC.
