From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch (vps0.lunn.ch [156.67.10.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79621346795; Mon, 26 Jan 2026 17:53:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=156.67.10.101 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769450032; cv=none; b=Poi7XAIVZPvJjDR4tSjT+RaToCI4E+qqFO5TzR9zO/GRCtr9yxaWGtzDdpTfSz4qSUZyCU/YETH7Lh66ZAJgpKtt6ehDJvR74JMHw3DVfRTN0+ftE2s8OIfTd21JH7dGADI40Auc7pUMeAtEPGxiCZHlkA3s41b4HRr1u9NrHis= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769450032; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hk87YrZr8wKIta1t8MmtJqZ4IvN5oO5ON/Gm0ZY7644=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Onizz27piC/de6wzGH876XCKwHvNyHiPbBupReYnFHJ/xDl8T4nEJmFBMtsbjQ/OEumKrrafZiYX3Hof1MWYaK6uvJYuzrU3nR9WWkbwLMexWsDB9LsdWXhP8ollC2/sz0seuLG8n+aY4pzblvZwgM5dnY30YL6bgHYc8pcctV4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lunn.ch; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lunn.ch; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b=wgUNFF6R; arc=none smtp.client-ip=156.67.10.101 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lunn.ch Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lunn.ch Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b="wgUNFF6R" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lunn.ch; s=20171124; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition: Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:From: Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Content-Disposition: In-Reply-To:References; bh=A2imvv/Nv6V0KNHRD/nF05oDP6rOwODYhOBi0AG27QA=; b=wg UNFF6RNwFqhE4MmO35Y6RNXGbLuJdgKXeypTCLd0wdmwKylvqdUSMzRkfHRGyJ3n1Q7U/3RzWhYCZ Kw8srmoYia2s9vfQ93O+3cRzzSnzFP4wQUfcj/qxXyey7uex5ud+yMAD3bE9JdIt6dJuAE14GtN6b lC8QmnvNefavlJM=; Received: from andrew by vps0.lunn.ch with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1vkQmO-004pH9-5M; Mon, 26 Jan 2026 18:53:36 +0100 Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 18:53:36 +0100 From: Andrew Lunn To: Brian Vazquez Cc: Brian Vazquez , Tony Nguyen , Przemek Kitszel , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, David Decotigny , Li Li , Anjali Singhai , Sridhar Samudrala , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, emil.s.tantilov@intel.com, Brett Creeley , Aleksandr Loktionov Subject: Re: [iwl-net PATCH v2] idpf: change IRQ naming to match netdev and ethtool queue numbering Message-ID: References: <20260126144624.2319784-1-brianvv@google.com> <37e1a648-609b-4d5e-9176-fbbacc7e9e07@lunn.ch> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 12:40:15PM -0500, Brian Vazquez wrote: > On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 11:24 AM Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 02:46:24PM +0000, Brian Vazquez wrote: > > > The code uses the vidx for the IRQ name but that doesn't match ethtool > > > reporting or netdev naming, this makes it hard to tune the device and > > > associate queues with IRQs. Sequentially requesting irqs starting from > > > '0' makes the output consistent. > > > > > > Before: > > > > > > ethtool -L eth1 tx 1 combined 3 > > > > > > grep . /proc/irq/*/*idpf*/../smp_affinity_list > > > /proc/irq/67/idpf-Mailbox-0/../smp_affinity_list:0-55,112-167 > > > /proc/irq/68/idpf-eth1-TxRx-1/../smp_affinity_list:0 > > > /proc/irq/70/idpf-eth1-TxRx-3/../smp_affinity_list:1 > > > /proc/irq/71/idpf-eth1-TxRx-4/../smp_affinity_list:2 > > > /proc/irq/72/idpf-eth1-Tx-5/../smp_affinity_list:3 > > > > > > ethtool -S eth1 | grep -v ': 0' > > > NIC statistics: > > > tx_q-0_pkts: 1002 > > > tx_q-1_pkts: 2679 > > > tx_q-2_pkts: 1113 > > > tx_q-3_pkts: 1192 <----- tx_q-3 vs idpf-eth1-Tx-5 > > > rx_q-0_pkts: 1143 > > > rx_q-1_pkts: 3172 > > > rx_q-2_pkts: 1074 > > > > > > After: > > > > > > ethtool -L eth1 tx 1 combined 3 > > > > > > grep . /proc/irq/*/*idpf*/../smp_affinity_list > > > > > > /proc/irq/67/idpf-Mailbox-0/../smp_affinity_list:0-55,112-167 > > > /proc/irq/68/idpf-eth1-TxRx-0/../smp_affinity_list:0 > > > /proc/irq/70/idpf-eth1-TxRx-1/../smp_affinity_list:1 > > > /proc/irq/71/idpf-eth1-TxRx-2/../smp_affinity_list:2 > > > /proc/irq/72/idpf-eth1-Tx-3/../smp_affinity_list:3 > > > > > > ethtool -S eth1 | grep -v ': 0' > > > NIC statistics: > > > tx_q-0_pkts: 118 > > > tx_q-1_pkts: 134 > > > tx_q-2_pkts: 228 > > > tx_q-3_pkts: 138 <--- tx_q-3 matches idpf-eth1-Tx-3 > > > rx_q-0_pkts: 111 > > > rx_q-1_pkts: 366 > > > rx_q-2_pkts: 120 > > > > Are there any ABI issues here? > > The patch doesn't change the format, it just fixes the numbering in > the name to make it consistent with other reporting tools. It > shouldn't break any library. But is the numbering part of the ABI? Making a comment about ABI in the commit message makes it clear it is something you have considered, and you have decided it is not an issue. If there is no such comment, reviewers probably should ask. Andrew