Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] ice: Improve MSI-X vector enablement fallback logic
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Date: 2021-01-20 00:42:50
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 00:12:26 +0000 Venkataramanan, Anirudh wrote:
quoted
quoted
Attempt [0]: Enable the best-case scenario MSI-X vectors. Attempt [1]: Enable MSI-X vectors with the number of pf-quoted
num_lan_msixreduced by a factor of 2 from the previous attempt (i.e. num_online_cpus() / 2). Attempt [2]: Same as attempt [1], except reduce by a factor of 4. Attempt [3]: Enable the bare-minimum MSI-X vectors. Also, if the adjusted_base_msix ever hits the minimum required for LAN, then just set the needed MSI-X for that feature to the minimum (similar to attempt [3]).I don't really get why you switch to this manual "exponential back- off" rather than continuing to use pci_enable_msix_range(), but fixing the capping to ICE_MIN_LAN_VECS.As per the current logic, if the driver does not get the number of MSI- X vectors it needs, it will immediately drop to "Do I have at least two (ICE_MIN_LAN_VECS) MSI-X vectors?". If yes, the driver will enable a single Tx/Rx traffic queue pair, bound to one of the two MSI-X vectors. This is a bit of an all-or-nothing type approach. There's a mid-ground that can allow more queues to be enabled (ex. driver asked for 300 vectors, but got 68 vectors, so enabled 64 data queues) and this patch implements the mid-ground logic. This mid-ground logic can also be implemented based on the return value of pci_enable_msix_range() but IMHO the implementation in this patch using pci_enable_msix_exact is better because it's always only enabling/reserving as many MSI-X vectors as required, not more, not less.
What do you mean by "required" in the last sentence? The driver requests num_online_cpus()-worth of IRQs, so it must work with any number of IRQs. Why is num_cpus() / 1,2,4,8 "required"?