From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48DCA45B1F; Sun, 13 Oct 2024 02:53:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 106C9402C4; Sun, 13 Oct 2024 02:53:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pf1-f175.google.com (mail-pf1-f175.google.com [209.85.210.175]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B59840273 for ; Sun, 13 Oct 2024 02:53:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pf1-f175.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-71e5a1c9071so196093b3a.0 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2024 17:53:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1728780785; x=1729385585; darn=dpdk.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=BNFCc8PJqdN/8+5/Sg+XycL9v9Mn0PXdXuTFVuWNICg=; b=WxVBWyekNic7F+Xwz2toIj48kLiAVzJGiiWOIQ4Mm48Tx8RfCSxUG6msQT1M4pfaN/ s9cMEce8GogGSGyfkFZkzDCxi/Jq1Q3SYUw2WppdecBlBRkOlzd7tvPJMp0deiBF9dRB XGZUM2tMsgNuHCPTq09EUOMYbMUGLOhBu1BFT3Lzahg8FpJ8bGtuwqQELMIPbUBazSGC UX1CXCEk+kp3NrN6Ea6SQWLyGO+SWKwvD2b0yWr4dWF2DV/jO4LF9xKHUiD6+eZ/bmoI E5kCO5Eh6Odggqdk6tUYSJtkLZYSorL7pLY/WBd2dm1NhhDOyl6ZHMP9x653o2oteCSN BOxA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1728780785; x=1729385585; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=BNFCc8PJqdN/8+5/Sg+XycL9v9Mn0PXdXuTFVuWNICg=; b=qlcP+RDHwanqhoggNx9AdxWdKaoehSDjZQjXwCi3c2VCk0VyuhbwiS7TvCepep8+Tw QRYbbTaoe7r+Aqc4EqFACTQMu70ZSqp3+IsqLJQ+YyEnGMXZG2+meNEuMCN8FWGZ+KNl DH5FkFdYRuXbfLHEO70LqCIH2vN9gxGx7ZYdrCwaIllzzpOeDh+heA4jTGa9PGVEhA7q g27/IDDUiomoBF8tHJWna+DMQ20zbPf5fqxvbeIUh2aU5eqSmfQvKMX7g2kmCVi8+zml jEv5Icazd8IiZmK+At4WnoGNwh5lvh8v4YJiNpL3KkTMHXmNefyEr39vktQmlTn0Lab5 O7/Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyeR61Hloo26TrXAEJyxMg0J40pCeaA6n71/JQffn1URAFogU+4 WRQ9D/8HcL4V+kMenfXZsotFQ4sBaQm8EJRzzu+hy74XAWlNJBbhZrOA8WAGnxP/ULNkWbX/dtH lqTo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGZ3hpYx00aEo2YxHvaibAZg2IX9eqLpRgAsoBGD3kGDOHbk0SFSSy2qw6X5fcbECWeGYRiRw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:1390:b0:71e:ba5:821b with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-71e3806bfefmr10854028b3a.27.1728780785712; Sat, 12 Oct 2024 17:53:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.local (204-195-96-226.wavecable.com. [204.195.96.226]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d2e1a72fcca58-71e2a9e98edsm4779062b3a.34.2024.10.12.17.53.05 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 12 Oct 2024 17:53:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 17:53:03 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] net/tap: queue limit patches Message-ID: <20241012175303.6c200a8f@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: References: <20241011173026.170884-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <20241012021844.536316-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 00:53:54 +0100 Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 10/12/2024 3:17 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > Some patches related to recent queue limit changes. > > > > v2 - up the limit to maximum Linux can support > > dont use static_assert here > > get rid of unreachable checks in configure > > > > Stephen Hemminger (3): > > net/tap: handle increase in mp_max_fds > > net/tap: increase the maximum allowable queues > > net/tap: remove unnecessary checks in configure > > > > Hi Stephen, > > Previous version already merged, but I am checking the difference in v2. > > Patch 1/3 is identical. > Patch 2/3, I prefer the v1 version, that increases the queue limit to > 64, instead of 253. Ok, we can bump it later if anyone wants to run on 128 core cpu > > v1 patch 3/3 static assert seems gone, it seems because of the loongarch > build, but can we please root cause why it failed, and can the failure > be a test environment issue? Right, not sure what was wrong there, and not easy to setup a loongarch build (even with qemu) to repro. > v2 patch 3/3 looks good, it can be merged separately. Ok, will add it to later follow up set. The tap device driver needs lots more cleanups.