On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 05:52:40 +0000 Chaoyong He <chaoyong...@corigine.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 4 Dec 2024 06:21:00 +0000 > > > Chaoyong He <chaoyong...@corigine.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > The definition of what a "dedicated queue" is a bit confusing. > > > > > If it is only for LACP packets, it should never need to be very big. > > > > > Only under a mis-configuration and DoS kind of flood should there > > > > > ever be many packets. > > > > > > > > Yes, the dedicated queue is only for LACP packets now and it doesn't > > > > need be > > > set very big. > > > > > > > > But if we use a hardware queue as the "dedicated queue", we must > > > > consider the hardware capability. The minimum queue size of some > > > > NICs may be larger than the hardcode dedicated queue size. In this > > > > case, I think it > > > is better to add an interface to set the dedicated queue size. > > > > > > How about using the existing descriptor queue limits api for that? > > > It is reported by info get > > > > Using existing descriptor queue limits api is good enough for current > > problem(hardware capability), but I think it is not very flexible. > > Now we use a macro as a default value for dedicated queue size, but we can > > replace the macro with queue limit while still retaining the interface for > > modifying queue size. > > What do you think of this? > > A gentle ping ~ Should be a devargs parameter to bonding PMD, not a whole new API.
