Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next 3/3] ice: switch to Page Pool

[Michal Kubiak <michal.kubiak@intel.com>]

On Fri, Aug 08, 2025 at 03:08:41PM +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
> Dear Michal,
> 
> 
> Thank you for your reply.
> 
> Am 08.08.25 um 15:04 schrieb Michal Kubiak:
> > On Fri, Aug 08, 2025 at 02:03:43PM +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
> 
> > > Am 08.08.25 um 13:40 schrieb Michal Kubiak:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 03:58:37PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 7/4/2025 9:18 AM, Michal Kubiak wrote:
> > > > > > @@ -1075,16 +780,17 @@ void ice_clean_ctrl_rx_irq(struct ice_rx_ring *rx_ring)
> > > > > >    static int ice_clean_rx_irq(struct ice_rx_ring *rx_ring, int budget)
> > > > 
> > > > [...]
> > > > 
> > > > > > @@ -1144,27 +841,35 @@ static int ice_clean_rx_irq(struct ice_rx_ring *rx_ring, int budget)
> > > > > >    		if (ice_is_non_eop(rx_ring, rx_desc))
> > > > > >    			continue;
> > > > > > -		ice_get_pgcnts(rx_ring);
> > > > > >    		xdp_verdict = ice_run_xdp(rx_ring, xdp, xdp_prog, xdp_ring, rx_desc);
> > > > > >    		if (xdp_verdict == ICE_XDP_PASS)
> > > > > >    			goto construct_skb;
> > > > > > -		total_rx_bytes += xdp_get_buff_len(xdp);
> > > > > > -		total_rx_pkts++;
> > > > > > -		ice_put_rx_mbuf(rx_ring, xdp, &xdp_xmit, ntc, xdp_verdict);
> > > > > > +		if (xdp_verdict & (ICE_XDP_TX | ICE_XDP_REDIR))
> > > > > > +			xdp_xmit |= xdp_verdict;
> > > > > > +		total_rx_bytes += xdp_get_buff_len(&xdp->base);
> > > > > > +		total_rx_pkts++;
> > > > > > +		xdp->data = NULL;
> > > > > > +		rx_ring->first_desc = ntc;
> > > > > > +		rx_ring->nr_frags = 0;
> > > > > >    		continue;
> > > > > >    construct_skb:
> > > > > > -		skb = ice_build_skb(rx_ring, xdp);
> > > > > > +		skb = xdp_build_skb_from_buff(&xdp->base);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > >    		/* exit if we failed to retrieve a buffer */
> > > > > >    		if (!skb) {
> > > > > >    			rx_ring->ring_stats->rx_stats.alloc_page_failed++;
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is not your fault, but we've been incorrectly incrementing
> > > > > alloc_page_failed here instead of alloc_buf_failed.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Sure. It's a good idea to fix it while we're rewriting the Rx path.
> > > > Will be addressed in v2.
> > > 
> > > Should this be a separate patch, that can be easily backported?
> > > 
> > > […]
> 
> > Do you mean that the patch should be included as part of the series, or would
> > you prefer it to be submitted as a standalone patch targeting the 'net' tree?
> Good question. I do not know the rules. My gut would say a separate patch
> for 'net', but the others know best.
> 
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Paul

Thank you for your thoughts, Paul!
Finally, I decided to send a separate patch for that fix to the "net" tree.
It seems to be the clearest solution.

The link: https://lore.kernel.org/intel-wired-lan/20250808155310.1053477-1-michal.kubiak@intel.com/

Thanks,
Michal