Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 06:52:49AM CET, xuejun.zh...@intel.com wrote: >Hello Jiri & Jakub, > >Thanks for looking into our last patch with devlink API. Really appreciate >your candid review. > >Following your suggestion, we have looked into 3 tc offload options to >support queue rate limiting > >#1 mq + matchall + police
This looks most suitable. Why it would not work? > >#2 mq + tbf > >#3 htb > >all 3 tc offload options require some level of tc extensions to support VF tx >queue rate limiting (tx_maxrate & tx_minrate) > >htb offload requires minimal tc changes or no change with similar change done >@ driver (we can share patch for review). > >After discussing with Maxim Mikityanskiy( >https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/54a7dd27-a612-46f1-80dd-b43e28f8e...@intel.com/ >), looks like sysfs interface with tx_minrate extension could be the option I don't undestand how any sysfs know is related to any of the tree tc solutions above. >we can take. > >Look forward your opinion & guidance. Thanks for your time! > >Regards, > >Jun > >On 8/28/2023 3:46 PM, Zhang, Xuejun wrote: >> >> On 8/24/2023 12:04 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> > Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 09:13:34PM CEST, xuejun.zh...@intel.com wrote: >> > > On 8/22/2023 8:34 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> > > > Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 05:12:55PM CEST,k...@kernel.org wrote: >> > > > > On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 08:12:28 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote: >> > > > > > NACK! Port function is there to configure the VF/SF from the >> > > > > > eswitch >> > > > > > side. Yet you use it for the configureation of the >> > > > > > actual VF, which is >> > > > > > clear misuse. Please don't >> > > > > Stating where they are supposed to configure the rate >> > > > > would be helpful. >> > > > TC? >> > > Our implementation is an extension to this commit 42c2eb6b1f43 >> > > ice: Implement >> > > devlink-rate API). >> > > >> > > We are setting the Tx max & share rates of individual queues in a >> > > VF using >> > > the devlink rate API. >> > > >> > > Here we are using DEVLINK_PORT_FLAVOUR_VIRTUAL as the attribute >> > > for the port >> > > to distinguish it from being eswitch. >> > I understand, that is a wrong object. So again, you should use >> > "function" subobject of devlink port to configure "the other side of the >> > wire", that means the function related to a eswitch port. Here, you are >> > doing it for the VF directly, which is wrong. If you need some rate >> > limiting to be configured on an actual VF, use what you use for any >> > other nic. Offload TC. >> Thanks for detailed explanation and suggestions. Sorry for late reply as >> it took a bit longer to understand options. >> >> As sysfs has similar rate configuration on per queue basis with >> tx_maxrate, is it a viable option for our use case (i.e allow user to >> configure tx rate for each allocated queue in a VF). >> >> Pls aslo see If adding tx_minrate to sysfs tx queue entry is feasible on >> the current framework. >> _______________________________________________ >> Intel-wired-lan mailing list >> Intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org >> https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan _______________________________________________ Intel-wired-lan mailing list Intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan
