Re: [PATCH] net/smc: Add autocork support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2/16/22 16:27, dust.li wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 02:58:32PM +0100, Stefan Raspl wrote:
On 2/16/22 04:49, Dust Li wrote:
diff --git a/net/smc/smc_tx.c b/net/smc/smc_tx.c
index 5df3940d4543..bc737ac79805 100644
--- a/net/smc/smc_tx.c
+++ b/net/smc/smc_tx.c
@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
   #include "smc_tracepoint.h"
   #define SMC_TX_WORK_DELAY	0
+#define SMC_DEFAULT_AUTOCORK_SIZE	(64 * 1024)

Probably a matter of taste, but why not use hex here?

Yeah, I have no option on this, I will change it in the next version.
But I think it should have no real difference since the compiler
should do the calculation.

Agreed - this is just to make it a tiny bit easier to digest.


Are there any fixed plans to make SMC_DEFAULT_AUTOCORK dynamic...? 'cause
otherwise we could simply eliminate this parameter, and use the define within
smc_should_autocork() instead.

Yes! Actually I'd like it to be dynamic variable too...

I didn't do it because I also want to add a control switch for the autocork
feature just like TCP. In that case I need to add 2 variables here.
But I found adding dynamic variables using netlink would introduce a lot of
redundant code and may even bring ABI compatibility issues in the future, as
I mentioned here:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20220216114618.GA39286@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#mecfcd3f8c816d07dbe35e4748d17008331c89523

I'm not sure that's the right way to do it. In this case, I prefer using
sysctl which I think would be easier, but I would like to listen to your advice.

Extending the Netlink interface should be possible without breaking the API - we'd be adding further variables, not modifying or removing existing ones. Conceptually, Netlink is the way to go for any userspace interaction with SMC, which includes anything config-related. Now we understand that cloud workloads are a bit different, and the desire to be able to modify the environment of a container while leaving the container image unmodified is understandable. But then again, enabling the base image would be the cloud way to address this. The question to us is: How do other parts of the kernel address this?

Ciao,
Stefan





[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Info]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux