[Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v7] ixgbe: let the xdpdrv work with more than 64 cpus

[Nguyen, Anthony L <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>]

On Thu, 2021-09-16 at 14:41 +0800, Jason Xing wrote:
> Hello guys,
> 
> any suggestions or comments on this v7 patch?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jason
> 
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 6:12 PM <kerneljasonxing@gmail.com> wrote:
> > From: Jason Xing <xingwanli@kuaishou.com>
> > 
> > Originally, ixgbe driver doesn't allow the mounting of xdpdrv if
> > the
> > server is equipped with more than 64 cpus online. So it turns out
> > that
> > the loading of xdpdrv causes the "NOMEM" failure.
> > 
> > Actually, we can adjust the algorithm and then make it work through
> > mapping the current cpu to some xdp ring with the protect of
> > @tx_lock.
> > 
> > Here're some numbers before/after applying this patch with xdp-
> > example
> > loaded on the eth0X:
> > 
> > As client (tx path):
> >                      Before    After
> > TCP_STREAM send-64   734.14    714.20
> > TCP_STREAM send-128  1401.91   1395.05
> > TCP_STREAM send-512  5311.67   5292.84
> > TCP_STREAM send-1k   9277.40   9356.22 (not stable)
> > TCP_RR     send-1    22559.75  21844.22
> > TCP_RR     send-128  23169.54  22725.13
> > TCP_RR     send-512  21670.91  21412.56
> > 
> > As server (rx path):
> >                      Before    After
> > TCP_STREAM send-64   1416.49   1383.12
> > TCP_STREAM send-128  3141.49   3055.50
> > TCP_STREAM send-512  9488.73   9487.44
> > TCP_STREAM send-1k   9491.17   9356.22 (not stable)
> > TCP_RR     send-1    23617.74  23601.60
> > ...
> > 
> > Notice: the TCP_RR mode is unstable as the official document
> > explaines.
> > 
> > I tested many times with different parameters combined through
> > netperf.
> > Though the result is not that accurate, I cannot see much influence
> > on
> > this patch. The static key is places on the hot path, but it
> > actually
> > shouldn't cause a huge regression theoretically.
> > 
> > Fixes: 33fdc82f08 ("ixgbe: add support for XDP_TX action")

Hi Jason,

The patch doesn't have an explicit target of net or net-next. I assume
since you put a Fixes tag you're wanting it to go through net, however,
this seems more like an improvement that should go through net-next.
Please let me know if you disagree, otherwise I will send to net-next.

Thanks,
Tony

> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> > Co-developed-by: Shujin Li <lishujin@kuaishou.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Shujin Li <lishujin@kuaishou.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <xingwanli@kuaishou.com>
>