On Tue, 2019-09-10 at 11:29 -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 9/10/19 11:26 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 04:41:47PM +0100, Robert Beckett wrote: > > > This enables us to negoatiate pause frame transmission to > > > prioritise > > > packet delivery over throughput. > > > > I don't think we can unconditionally enable this. It is a big > > behaviour change, and it is likely to break running systems. It has > > affects on QoS, packet prioritisation, etc. > > > > I think there needs to be a configuration knob. But unfortunately, > > i > > don't know of a good place to put this knob. The switch CPU port is > > not visible in any way. > > Broadcast storm suppression is to be solved at ingress, not on the > CPU > port, once this lands on the CPU port, it's game over already.
It is not just for broadcast storm protection. The original issue that made me look in to all of this turned out to be rx descritor ring buffer exhaustion due to the CPU not being able to keep up with packet reception. Although the simple repro case for it is a broadcast storm, this could happen with many legitimate small packets, and the correct way to handle it seems to be pause frames, though I am not traditionally a network programmer, so my knowledge may be incorrect. Please advise if you know of a better way to handle that. Fundamentally, with a phy to phy CPU connection, the CPU MAC may well wish to enable pause frames for various reasons, so we should strive to handle that I think.
