Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 5 Jul 2023 11:11:19 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Wei Fang <wei.fang@nxp.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        "davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "edumazet@google.com" <edumazet@google.com>,
        "pabeni@redhat.com" <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        "ast@kernel.org" <ast@kernel.org>,
        "daniel@iogearbox.net" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        "hawk@kernel.org" <hawk@kernel.org>,
        "john.fastabend@gmail.com" <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        Shenwei Wang <shenwei.wang@nxp.com>,
        Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@nxp.com>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "bpf@vger.kernel.org" <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 3/3] net: fec: increase the size of tx ring and
 update thresholds of tx ring
Message-ID: <20230705111119.07c3dee3@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <AM5PR04MB3139789F6CCA4BEC8A871C1D882FA@AM5PR04MB3139.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20230704082916.2135501-1-wei.fang@nxp.com>
        <20230704082916.2135501-4-wei.fang@nxp.com>
        <0443a057-767f-4f9c-afd2-37d26b606d74@lunn.ch>
        <AM5PR04MB3139789F6CCA4BEC8A871C1D882FA@AM5PR04MB3139.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 06:20:26 +0000 Wei Fang wrote:
> > > In addtion, this patch also updates the tx_stop_threshold and the
> > > tx_wake_threshold of the tx ring. In previous logic, the value of
> > > tx_stop_threshold is 217, however, the value of tx_wake_threshold is
> > > 147, it does not make sense that tx_wake_threshold is less than
> > > tx_stop_threshold.  
> > 
> > What do these actually mean? I could imagine that as the ring fills you don't
> > want to stop until it is 217/512 full. There is then some hysteresis, such that it
> > has to drop below 147/512 before more can be added?
> >   
> You must have misunderstood, let me explain more clearly, the queue will be
> stopped when the available BDs are less than tx_stop_threshold (217 BDs). And
> the queue will be waked when the available BDs are greater than tx_wake_threshold
> (147 BDs). So in most cases, the available BDs are greater than tx_wake_threshold
> when the queue is stopped, the only effect is to delay packet sending.
> In my opinion, tx_wake_threshold should be greater than tx_stop_threshold, we
> should stop queue when the available BDs are not enough for a skb to be attached.
> And wake the queue when the available BDs are sufficient for a skb.

But you shouldn't restart the queue for a single packet either.
Restarting for a single packet wastes CPU cycles as there will 
be much more stop / start operations. Two large packets seem 
like the absolute minimum reasonable wake threshold.

Setting tx_stop_threshold to MAX_SKB_FRAGS doesn't seem right either,
as you won't be able to accept a full TSO frame.

Please split the change, the netdev_err_once() should be one patch
and then the change to wake thresh a separate one.
-- 
pw-bot: cr