From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.tipi-net.de (mail.tipi-net.de [194.13.80.246]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C30F35BDC2 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 08:10:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.13.80.246 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790237459; cv=none; b=galczov+52g50qRlMrI0V0vb3ccj17mMAdqi2zjOAfS+mQZ5Ed+vZ6EHacMOLz1b5Xk7ZOmYSJWK0796NK7YkX1yH9PWqoMN/623hWkyxac69tiuPuVL+b5/jZXvgG7sutuRG7BCTwJ8UFOUE4+47xz8Gw9kdVso7Swkz1mCroY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790237459; c=relaxed/simple; bh=M9DLzBsC/kmPzotkCWu7Vfezv+7isEBbZYFAMOMtkSM=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=gc4s9zzy9vXxYVTxrC+St4kD/VBc6tL6LNKr7Hp2InadF8Y2ZALYIIRFuKwvQD4BZ3Llpky9vJoAaRE87XGfCwIjzxGMUn+5tKCY2Gn/3W4H3WbShFx/Hm1j9NcCVsPstX2moDkkavwH5KHvwHnMyqRVNrZ/uLozVZ6IlBUpwHM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=tipi-net.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tipi-net.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tipi-net.de header.i=@tipi-net.de header.b=nMYTjKBD; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.13.80.246 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=tipi-net.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tipi-net.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tipi-net.de header.i=@tipi-net.de header.b="nMYTjKBD" Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPSA id 0C4C8A4AAD; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 10:10:49 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tipi-net.de; s=dkim; t=1790237451; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references; bh=03E15lf2Odsx2dSXpnaC4f3m1J1FQ7fdkgcJqb90RfY=; b=nMYTjKBDyOfdRV6ddfWdetJBJjtb4vb+oFsonA4EiMHmLKH4wxpNncaLHPTFWabz/mKSA1 6Gn+20PNSWplZue4LBswZJfBm9blin9frMcrfdNnlivlxQC7ijC7ZhVkrOYLmc0Rr483iW qIN90cjpEEqCua9Y78iND4zYx3o5l6cWyosn9w53I8lj0dcx4TgO92eNIa0rjXgq60B92V vLZ86FBZ8p9fhOeqZfkfyl5bAcHgBXrKxfPB0eF7nUEVjN8qO4RTpelfJg7jDnUXuHaAtX WGzpM8RiCIZK2xfULwnziB5jSrrvvt5KFgjvANFXLNuJmFr7+qTl0I5r24zHTg== Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: patches@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 10:10:49 +0200 From: Nicolai Buchwitz To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Karl Mehltretter , stable@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev, Justin Chen , Doug Berger , Florian Fainelli , Broadcom internal kernel review list , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jakub Kicinski , Sasha Levin Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.18 129/398] net: bcmgenet: convert RX path to page_pool In-Reply-To: <2026092430-contently-pungent-f0cc@gregkh> References: <20260923140643.441954610@linuxfoundation.org> <20260923140646.783275824@linuxfoundation.org> <20260924065839.56793-1-kmehltretter@gmail.com> <2026092430-contently-pungent-f0cc@gregkh> Message-ID: X-Sender: nb@tipi-net.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.3 Hi Greg On 24.9.2026 09:28, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 08:58:39AM +0200, Karl Mehltretter wrote: >> I have a small objection to taking patch 129 into 6.18.y only as a >> dependency for patch 130. >> >> My LLM agent helped me running these tests. >> >> On a 64 KiB arm64 kernel in a custom QEMU Pi 400 model with functional >> GENET v5 DMA, patch 129 increased the socket receive-memory charge per >> 512-byte UDP datagram from 2,752 to 65,792 bytes. >> >> With the same 512 KiB socket receive-buffer limit, this reduced the >> number >> of queued datagrams from 190 to 7 and increased socket receive-buffer >> drops >> from 810 to 993 per 1,000 datagrams. I obtained the same result in >> five >> bursts. >> >> The page-pool conversion otherwise worked in this test, and physical >> Pi 400 >> testing with 4 KiB pages found no correctness failure. However, patch >> 130 >> was also verified on the Pi 400 to work without patch 129 after a >> small >> contextual adaptation. >> >> I would appreciate the BCMGENET maintainers' view on whether this >> page-pool >> conversion is appropriate for 6.18.y. >> >> Please consider omitting patch 129 from 6.18.y and applying that >> adapted >> version of patch 130 directly. > > But when you update to a newer release, that memory increase will > happen, right? So why not fix the root problem upstream first? Agree. I will have a look at Karl's regression report and probably sent patches via netdev with cc stable. > [...] Regards Nicolai