From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@intel.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>, Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org>,
"Martin KaFai Lau" <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
<netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/9] bpf: cpumap: enable GRO for XDP_PASS frames
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 07:50:41 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240904075041.2467995c@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f23131c1-aae2-4c04-a60e-801ed1970be8@intel.com>
On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:13:54 +0200 Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> > Could you try to use the backlog NAPI? Allocating a fake netdev and
> > using NAPI as a threading abstraction feels like an abuse. Maybe try
> > to factor out the necessary bits? What we want is using the per-cpu
> > caches, and feeding GRO. None of the IRQ related NAPI functionality
> > fits in here.
>
> Lorenzo will try as he wrote. I can only add that in my old tree, I
> factored out GRO bits and used them here just as you wrote. The perf was
> the same, but the diffstat was several hundred lines only to factor out
> stuff, while here the actual switch to NAPI removes more lines than
> adds, also custom kthread logic is gone etc. It just looks way more
> elegant and simple.
Once again we seem to be arguing whether lower LoC is equivalent to
better code? :) If we can use backlog NAPI it hopefully won't be as
long. Maybe other, better approaches are within reach, too.
> I could say that gro_cells also "abuses" NAPI the same way, don't you
> think?
"same way"? :] Does it allocate a fake netdev, use NAPI as a threading
abstraction or add extra fields to napi_struct ?
If other maintainers disagree I won't be upset, but I'm worried
that letting NAPI grow into some generic SW abstraction with broad
use cases will hinder the ongoing queue config efforts.
> But nobody ever objected :>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-04 14:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-30 16:24 [PATCH bpf-next 0/9] bpf: cpumap: enable GRO for XDP_PASS frames Alexander Lobakin
2024-08-30 16:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/9] firmware/psci: fix missing '%u' format literal in kthread_create_on_cpu() Alexander Lobakin
2024-08-30 23:31 ` Daniel Xu
2024-08-30 16:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/9] kthread: allow vararg kthread_{create,run}_on_cpu() Alexander Lobakin
2024-08-30 22:56 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2024-09-03 12:25 ` Alexander Lobakin
2024-09-03 17:04 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2024-08-30 16:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/9] net: napi: add ability to create CPU-pinned threaded NAPI Alexander Lobakin
2024-08-31 0:19 ` Daniel Xu
2024-08-30 16:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/9] bpf: cpumap: use CPU-pinned threaded NAPI w/GRO instead of kthread Alexander Lobakin
2024-08-30 16:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next 5/9] bpf: cpumap: reuse skb array instead of a linked list to chain skbs Alexander Lobakin
2024-08-30 16:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next 6/9] net: skbuff: introduce napi_skb_cache_get_bulk() Alexander Lobakin
2024-08-30 16:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next 7/9] bpf: cpumap: switch to napi_skb_cache_get_bulk() Alexander Lobakin
2024-08-30 16:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next 8/9] veth: use napi_skb_cache_get_bulk() instead of xdp_alloc_skb_bulk() Alexander Lobakin
2024-08-30 16:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next 9/9] xdp: remove xdp_alloc_skb_bulk() Alexander Lobakin
2024-09-03 20:51 ` [PATCH bpf-next 0/9] bpf: cpumap: enable GRO for XDP_PASS frames Jakub Kicinski
2024-09-03 21:33 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
2024-09-05 11:53 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2024-09-05 17:01 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
2024-09-06 0:20 ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-09-06 8:15 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
2024-09-07 13:22 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
2024-09-04 13:13 ` Alexander Lobakin
2024-09-04 14:50 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2024-09-04 15:13 ` Alexander Lobakin
2024-09-04 18:29 ` Jakub Kicinski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240904075041.2467995c@kernel.org \
--to=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=aleksander.lobakin@intel.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dxu@dxuuu.xyz \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=hawk@kernel.org \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lorenzo@kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).