From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jisheng Zhang <Jisheng.Zhang@synaptics.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] net: mvneta: some bug fix and trivial improvement
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 16:51:31 +0800
Message-ID: <20180829165131.52798cd6@xhacker.debian>
References: <20180829162456.2bd69796@xhacker.debian>
        <20180829164024.41e8439d@xhacker.debian>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@bootlin.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Yelena Krivosheev <yelena@marvell.com>
To: <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180829164024.41e8439d@xhacker.debian>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 16:40:24 +0800 Jisheng Zhang wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 16:25:57 +0800
> Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> 
> > patch1 fixes rx_offset_correction set and usage. Because the
> > rx_offset_correction is RX packet offset correction for platforms,
> > it's not related with SW BM, instead, it's only related with the
> > platform's NET_SKB_PAD.
> > 
> > patch2 fixes the wrong function to unmap rx buf  
> 
> I have question about the following two commits:
> 
> 7e47fd84b56b ("net: mvneta: Allocate page for the descriptor"), it cause
> a waste, for normal 1500 MTU, before this patch we allocate 1920Bytes for rx
> after this patch, we always allocate PAGE_SIZE bytes, if PAGE_SIZE=4096, we
> waste 53% memory for each rx buf. I'm not sure whether the performance
> improvement deserve the pay.
> 
> 562e2f467e71 ("net: mvneta: Improve the buffer allocation method for SWBM")
> mentions that "With system having a small memory (around 256MB), the state
> "cannot allocate memory to refill with new buffer" is reach pretty quickly"
> is it due to the memory waste as said above? Anyway, by this commit, we
> want to improve the situation on a small memory system, so should we firstly
> revert commit 7e47fd84b56b ("net: mvneta: Allocate page for the descriptor")?
> 

If maintainers decide to revert the two commits: 7e47fd84b56b and 562e2f467e71
then, patch1,2,3 are useless, we can drop them. Only patch4 and patch5 are
still useful.

Thanks

> Any comments are welcome!
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> > 
> > patch3 removes the NETIF_F_GRO check ourself, because the net subsystem
> > will handle it for us.
> > 
> > patch4 enables NETIF_F_RXCSUM by default, since the driver and HW
> > supports the feature.
> > 
> > patch5 is a trivial optimization, to reduce smp_processor_id() calling
> > in mvneta_tx_done_gbe.
> > 
> > Jisheng Zhang (5):
> >   net: mvneta: fix rx_offset_correction set and usage
> >   net: mvneta: fix the wrong function to unmap rx buf
> >   net: mvneta: Don't check NETIF_F_GRO ourself
> >   net: mvneta: enable NETIF_F_RXCSUM by default
> >   net: mvneta: reduce smp_processor_id() calling in mvneta_tx_done_gbe
> > 
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c | 49 ++++++++++++---------------
> >  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> >   
>