On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 13:23:47 -0500
"Limonciello, Mario" <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 7/31/2023 1:13 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 11:02:40 -0500 Limonciello, Mario wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I noticed today with 6.5-rc4 and also on 6.1.42 that I'm getting an
> >> error from an r8152 based dongle (Framework ethernet expansion card).
> >>
> >> netif_napi_add_weight() called with weight 256
> >>
> >> It seems that this message is likely introduced by
> >> 8ded532cd1cbe ("r8152: switch to netif_napi_add_weight()")
> >>
> >> which if the card has support_2500full set will program the value to 256:
> >>
> >> netif_napi_add_weight(netdev, &tp->napi, r8152_poll,
> >> tp->support_2500full ? 256 : 64);
> >>
> >> It's err level from
> >> 82dc3c63c692b ("net: introduce NAPI_POLL_WEIGHT")
> >>
> >> Why is this considered an error but the driver uses the bigger value?
> >> Should it be downgraded to a warning?
> >
> > Could you double check that the warning wasn't there before? The code
> > added by commit 195aae321c82 ("r8152: support new chips") in 5.13 looks
> > very much equivalent.
>
> Yeah; looking through the history I agree it was probably was there from
> the beginning of being introduced.
>
> 6.1 is the earliest kernel that is usable with this laptop (for other
> reasons).
>
> > The custom weight is probably due to a misunderstanding. We have 200G
> > adapters using the standard weight of 64, IDK why 2.5G adapter would
> > need anything special.
>
> Perhaps Hayes Wang can comment on this (as the author of 195aae321c82).
>
Large NAPI weights mean that one busy device (DOS attack) can starve the
system. Really doubt that > 64 makes any visible difference in throughput.
