From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 7/7] net: ethernet: ti: cpsw: add XDP support Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 18:32:41 +0200 Message-ID: <20190531183241.255293bc@carbon> References: <20190530182039.4945-1-ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org> <20190530182039.4945-8-ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org> <20190531174643.4be8b27f@carbon> <20190531162523.GA3694@khorivan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190531162523.GA3694@khorivan> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ivan Khoronzhuk Cc: grygorii.strashko@ti.com, hawk@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, ast@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, xdp-newbies@vger.kernel.org, ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com, john.fastabend@gmail.com, brouer@redhat.com List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 31 May 2019 19:25:24 +0300 Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 05:46:43PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > >From below code snippets, it looks like you only allocated 1 page_pool > >and sharing it with several RX-queues, as I don't have the full context > >and don't know this driver, I might be wrong? > > > >To be clear, a page_pool object is needed per RX-queue, as it is > >accessing a small RX page cache (which protected by NAPI/softirq). > > There is one RX interrupt and one RX NAPI for all rx channels. So, what are you saying? You _are_ sharing the page_pool between several RX-channels, but it is safe because this hardware only have one RX interrupt + NAPI instance?? -- Best regards, Jesper Dangaard Brouer MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer