Re: [RFC net-next v4 0/9] Add support for per-NAPI config via netlink

[Joe Damato]

On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 04:53:13PM -0700, Joe Damato wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 04:29:37PM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > On 10/01, Joe Damato wrote:
> 
> [...]
>  
> > >   2. This revision seems to work (see below for a full walk through). Is
> > >      this the behavior we want? Am I missing some use case or some
> > >      behavioral thing other folks need?
> > 
> > The walk through looks good!
> 
> Thanks for taking a look.
> 
> > >   3. Re a previous point made by Stanislav regarding "taking over a NAPI
> > >      ID" when the channel count changes: mlx5 seems to call napi_disable
> > >      followed by netif_napi_del for the old queues and then calls
> > >      napi_enable for the new ones. In this RFC, the NAPI ID generation
> > >      is deferred to napi_enable. This means we won't end up with two of
> > >      the same NAPI IDs added to the hash at the same time (I am pretty
> > >      sure).
> > 
> > 
> > [..]
> > 
> > >      Can we assume all drivers will napi_disable the old queues before
> > >      napi_enable the new ones? If yes, we might not need to worry about
> > >      a NAPI ID takeover function.
> > 
> > With the explicit driver opt-in via netif_napi_add_config, this
> > shouldn't matter? When somebody gets to converting the drivers that
> > don't follow this common pattern they'll have to solve the takeover
> > part :-)
> 
> That is true; that's a good point.

Actually, sorry, that isn't strictly true. NAPI ID generation is
moved for everything to napi_enable; they just are (or are not)
persisted depending on whether the driver opted in to add_config or
not.

So, the change does affect all drivers. NAPI IDs won't be generated
and added to the hash until napi_enable and they will be removed
from the hash in napi_disable... even if you didn't opt-in to having
storage.

Opt-ing in to storage via netif_napi_add_config just means that your
NAPI IDs (and other settings) will be persistent.

Sorry about my confusion when replying earlier.