On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 9:01 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 04:10:33PM +0530, Selvin Xavier wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 10:10 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 07:45:35AM -0800, Selvin Xavier wrote: > > > > Implements routines to set and get different settings of > > > > the congestion control. This will enable the users to modify > > > > the settings according to their network. > > > > > > Should something like this be in debugfs though? > > Since these are Broadcom specific parameters, i thought its better to > > be under debugfs. Also I took the reference of a similar > > implementation in mlx5. > > debugfs is disabled in a lot of deployments, it is a big part of why > we are doing fwctl. If you know it works for you cases, debugfs is > pretty open ended.. The main use case for this debugfs support is for evaluation customers and the tuning for their network. So debugfs should be okay. > > > > bnxt_qplib_modify_cc() is just sending a firmware command, seems like > > > this should belong to fwctl? > > Agree. We can move to this model once fwctl is accepted. For now, it > > is important for us to support our customers with an immediate > > solution. Customers are asking for this support. > > Well, fwctl can be accepted when you guys come through with an > implementation :) > > > > Additionally there may be interest in some common way to control CC > > > for RDMA.. > > > > Do you think there are common parameters for multiple vendors here? I > > think enable/disable is an option. > > I haven't seen much commonality here, every site seems to have their > own totally different stuff right now. > > Jason
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
