Messages in this thread | | | From | Madalin-Cristian Bucur <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH 03/10] dpaa_eth: add configurable bpool thresholds | Date | Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:54:09 +0000 |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: David Miller [mailto:davem@davemloft.net] > Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 2:35 AM > To: Bucur Madalin-Cristian-B32716 > Cc: joe@perches.com; netdev@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc- > dev@lists.ozlabs.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Wood Scott-B07421; > Liberman Igal-B31950; ppc@mindchasers.com; pebolle@tiscali.nl; > joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se > Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] dpaa_eth: add configurable bpool thresholds > > From: Madalin-Cristian Bucur <madalin.bucur@freescale.com> > Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 15:49:39 +0000 > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Joe Perches [mailto:joe@perches.com] > >> On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 19:16 +0300, Madalin Bucur wrote: > >> > Allow the user to tweak the refill threshold and the total number > >> > of buffers in the buffer pool. The provided values are for one CPU. > >> > >> Any value in making these module parameters instead? > > > > I expect one would (hardly ever) change these to improve some corner > > cases then use them with the new values. It may help in the tuning process > > but afterwards the bloat to the bootcmd would probably be a nuisance. > > I think these should be controlled by the existing ethtool infrastructure. > > Neither the Kconfig mechanism nor module parameters are appropriate, at > all.
The existing ethtool options are for ring based drivers (ethtool -g / -G). I would not use those as we are not using rings (they do not map well anyway).
We could introduce special options for our non-ring devices but for these parameters in particular I'd just resort to defines in the code as it's improbable one would want to change them.
Madalin
| |