On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 23:25:55 +0900 Taehee Yoo wrote: > > > The tcp-data-split is not enabled, the tcp-data-split-thresh will > > > not be used and can't be configured. > > > > > > # ethtool -G enp14s0f0np0 tcp-data-split off > > > # ethtool -g enp14s0f0np0 > > > Ring parameters for enp14s0f0np0: > > > Pre-set maximums: > > > ... > > > TCP data split thresh: 256 > > > Current hardware settings: > > > ... > > > TCP data split: off > > > TCP data split thresh: n/a > > > > My reply to Sridhar was probably quite unclear on this point, but FWIW > > I do also have a weak preference to drop the "TCP" from the new knob. > > Rephrasing what I said here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240911173150.571bf93b@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > the old knob is defined as being about TCP but for the new one we can > > pick how widely applicable it is (and make it cover UDP as well). > > I'm not sure that I understand about "knob". > The knob means the command "tcp-data-split-thresh"? > If so, I would like to change from "tcp-data-split-thresh" to > "header-data-split-thresh". Sounds good! > > > + if (tb[ETHTOOL_A_RINGS_TCP_DATA_SPLIT_THRESH] && > > > + !(ops->supported_ring_params & ETHTOOL_RING_USE_TCP_DATA_SPLIT)) { > > > > here you use the existing flag, yet gve and idpf set that flag and will > > ignore the setting silently. They need to be changed or we need a new > > flag. > > Okay, I would like to add the ETHTOOL_RING_USE_TCP_DATA_SPLIT_THRESH flag. > Or ETHTOOL_RING_USE_HDS_THRESH, which indicates header-data-split thresh. > If you agree with adding a new flag, how do you think about naming it? How about ETHTOOL_RING_USE_HDS_THRS ?
