Re: [PATCH v5] kni: allow configuring the kni thread granularity

[Tudor Cornea <tudor.cornea@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1645 bytes --]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 at 18:44, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote:

> On 1/14/2022 4:24 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 17:18:19 +0200
> > Tudor Cornea <tudor.cornea@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> +module_param(min_scheduling_interval, long, 0644);
> >> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(min_scheduling_interval,
> >> +"\t\tKni thread min scheduling interval (default=100 microseconds):\n"
> >> +"\t\t"
> >> +);
> >> +
> >> +module_param(max_scheduling_interval, long, 0644);
> >> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(max_scheduling_interval,
> >> +"\t\tKni thread max scheduling interval (default=200 microseconds):\n"
> >> +"\t\t"
> >> +);
> >
> > Please don't add more bad module parameter strings.
> > The KNI author did something no other kernel modules do with tabs
> > and double spacing, stop this bogus stuff.
> >
>
> The patch is good, let's not block it for the module parameter string,
> all can be fixed with another patch.
>
> Can you please give a sample what is a common way of it, me or Tudor can
> do the patch?
>
>
I agree that the module parameter string is in non-standard format.
I was planning to send a follow-up patch, which would correct the
description for all of the KNI parameters (including the two new parameters
that the current patch would add) in one shot.


> > Is there any reason you have to use KNI at all.
> > KNI is broken on many levels and is not fixable.
> > What about virtio or tap?
>
>
We've run some tests with tap interfaces and found the performance to not
be good enough for our use.
We're going to experiment with virtio_user in the future. I'm aware that
there is a long term plan to deprecate the KNI.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2556 bytes --]