[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 net-next 6/6] net: ethernet: ti: cpsw: add XDP support
On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 09:26:03AM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 20:23:48 +0300 Ivan Khoronzhuk <> wrote:
>> Add XDP support based on rx page_pool allocator, one frame per page.
>> Page pool allocator is used with assumption that only one rx_handler
>> is running simultaneously. DMA map/unmap is reused from page pool
>> despite there is no need to map whole page.
>> Due to specific of cpsw, the same TX/RX handler can be used by 2
>> network devices, so special fields in buffer are added to identify
>> an interface the frame is destined to. Thus XDP works for both
>> interfaces, that allows to test xdp redirect between two interfaces
>> easily. Aslo, each rx queue have own page pools, but common for both
>> netdevs.
>Looking at the details what happen when a single RX-queue can receive
>into multiple net_device'es. I realize that this driver will
>violate/kill some of the "hidden"/implicit RX-bulking that the
>XDP_REDIRECT code depend on for performance.
>Specifically, it violate this assumption:
> /* Ingress dev_rx will be the same for all xdp_frame's in
> * bulk_queue, because bq stored per-CPU and must be flushed
> * from net_device drivers NAPI func end.
> */
> if (!bq->dev_rx)
> bq->dev_rx = dev_rx;
>This drivers "NAPI func end", can have received into multiple
>net_devices, before it's NAPI cycle ends. Thus, violating this code
). I said, I moved to be per device in rx_handler. It violates nothing.

>Knowing all xdp_frame's in the bulk queue is from the same net_device,
>can be used to further optimize XDP. E.g. the dev->netdev_ops->ndo_xdp_xmit()
>call don't take fully advantage of this, yet. If we merge this driver,
>it will block optimizations in this area.


Seems I said that I moved it to flush, that does
dev->netdev_ops->ndo_xdp_xmit(), to rx_handler, so that it's done per device,
so device is knows per each flush.

In the code, I hope everyone can see ..., after each flush dev_rx is cleared
to 0. So no any impact on it.

As for me, it's very not clear and strange decision.

Ivan Khoronzhuk

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-03 09:39    [W:0.073 / U:5.424 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site