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: Sat, 1 Jun 2019 00:37:36 +0200 Message-ID: <20190601003736.65cb6a61@carbon> References: <20190530182039.4945-1-ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org> <20190530182039.4945-8-ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org> <20190531174643.4be8b27f@carbon> <20190531162523.GA3694@khorivan> <20190531183241.255293bc@carbon> <20190531170332.GB3694@khorivan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190531170332.GB3694@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 20:03:33 +0300 Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: > Probably it's not good example for others how it should be used, not > a big problem to move it to separate pools.., even don't remember why > I decided to use shared pool, there was some more reasons... need > search in history. Using a shared pool is makes it a lot harder to solve the issue I'm currently working on. That is handling/waiting for in-flight frames to complete, before removing the mem ID from the (r)hashtable lookup. I have working code, that basically remove page_pool_destroy() from public API, and instead lets xdp_rxq_info_unreg() call it when in-flight count reach zero (and delay fully removing the mem ID). -- Best regards, Jesper Dangaard Brouer MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer