Re: [PATCH net 0/2][pull request] Intel Wired LAN Driver Updates 2022-11-14 (i40e)

[Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>]

On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 02:24:33AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi Maciej,
> 
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 01:03:04AM +0100, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> > Hey Vladimir,
> > 
> > have a look at xdp_convert_zc_to_xdp_frame() in net/core/xdp.c. For XDP_TX
> > on ZC Rx side we basically create new xdp_frame backed by new page and
> > copy the contents we had in ZC buffer. Then we give back the ZC buffer to
> > XSK buff pool and new xdp_frame has to be DMA mapped to HW.
> 
> Ah, ok, I didn't notice the xdp_convert_zc_to_xdp_frame() call inside
> xdp_convert_buff_to_frame(), it's quite well hidden...
> 
> So it's clear now from a correctness point of view, thanks for clarifying.
> This could spark a separate discussion about whether there is any better
> alternative to copying the RX buffer for XDP_TX and re-mapping to DMA
> something that was already mapped. But I'm not interested in that, since
> I believe who wrote the code probably thought about the high costs too.
> Anyway, I believe that in the general case (meaning from the perspective
> of the XSK API) it's perfectly fine to keep the RX buffer around for a
> while, nobody forces you to copy the frame out of it for XDP_TX.

I sort of agree but I will get back to you after getting some sleep.
Basically I am observing better perf when I decide not to convert buff to
frame for XDP_TX (in this case I'm referring to standard data path of
Intel drivers, not the ZC data path). For ZC I am thinking about
converting ZC Rx buff to xdp_buff, but maybe we need to revisit the idea
behind that copy altogether. It was developed way before the times when
XSK buffer pool got introduced.