From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtpout-04.galae.net (smtpout-04.galae.net [185.171.202.116]) (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 5DB0C2C11CD for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2026 15:58:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.171.202.116 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771603104; cv=none; b=dWGXeyko99zePgplO1c/9DGSJdsEgmsoqSW7w1A6E+MpfaqFhIZEvBoobQcLaWS6Y5YvbNigikDJjdyCJJwzd1KpbvkOHd/MtVdMkD7tNOd2yNWDdjWG5/LKONLWdAzPWqpwnkZc7+mFaGq2A9ZB8EkayDc5IokgPlkowxDp6/E= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771603104; c=relaxed/simple; bh=iv2w/l6S7bc+01smkIa6Hgl+4jGTZZW2ISEvtpgwN1A=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:From:Subject:Cc:To: References:In-Reply-To; b=CFm1cig4zWhKrD0oP/IBn/ETbRpcrbaub7Q5fiJ6HjvEA1TvX4irKn81KL67jfqOCde/g70/guzF+O7qxR0aa+cUEmrmD7i2dhF/rDDKmoqoy5laFAeoHFCD67EqCVhX35T3CawH4M8jF2yl3ISG/eFnLWfTEZM8knEeF3nX+1Q= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=bootlin.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=bootlin.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bootlin.com header.i=@bootlin.com header.b=zKOJMlFE; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.171.202.116 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=bootlin.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=bootlin.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bootlin.com header.i=@bootlin.com header.b="zKOJMlFE" Received: from smtpout-01.galae.net (smtpout-01.galae.net [212.83.139.233]) by smtpout-04.galae.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E776C16540; Fri, 20 Feb 2026 15:58:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.galae.net (mail.galae.net [212.83.136.155]) by smtpout-01.galae.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FF325FA8F; Fri, 20 Feb 2026 15:58:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPSA id 3BB9B10368D25; Fri, 20 Feb 2026 16:58:16 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bootlin.com; s=dkim; t=1771603099; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references; bh=iv2w/l6S7bc+01smkIa6Hgl+4jGTZZW2ISEvtpgwN1A=; b=zKOJMlFEmDAZEqZM3eGSnURKdRST3P+EXK6bhN/yRGnNUSs3iAVe46X5e70ToRkTPl86Qi TVqAs92c1TABzsxVFXSUR5UTUlNt08qB8La7oGSsHHAA229ZUDTlrXKjhmKHL0K238Z+tY DuzcSjNmlS3hzvyhQhOt3Viy9zzHxLPbDgogN+oKqKXjcl4weo+iOr10wxkvif1uCcs2yA kitdgpOkAv8+zvfIlAPCtTR35AtDZQWUMZhnyoVySbdzi5EX+d9Ij8DCx9AqoJ1xn/jHAv faz67pvwFHtS7rkoA4Pubg4IwvuZjBa29mcP2a+ZkMz5+4Wtgpqjv2GodoYmSw== Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2026 16:58:16 +0100 Message-Id: From: =?utf-8?q?Th=C3=A9o_Lebrun?= Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/8] net: macb: Add XDP support and page pool integration Cc: "Nicolas Ferre" , "Claudiu Beznea" , "Andrew Lunn" , "David S. Miller" , "Eric Dumazet" , "Jakub Kicinski" , "Paolo Abeni" , "Lorenzo Bianconi" , =?utf-8?q?Gr=C3=A9gory_Clement?= , "Thomas Petazzoni" To: "Paolo Valerio" , =?utf-8?q?Th=C3=A9o_Lebrun?= , X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0-0-g5549850facc2 References: <20260115222531.313002-1-pvalerio@redhat.com> <874inj72uv.fsf@redhat.com> <87fr6w1udm.fsf@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87fr6w1udm.fsf@redhat.com> X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.3 On Thu Feb 19, 2026 at 7:05 PM CET, Paolo Valerio wrote: > On 16 Feb 2026 at 10:17:39 AM, Th=C3=A9o Lebrun = wrote: >> On Sat Feb 14, 2026 at 4:37 PM CET, Paolo Valerio wrote: >>> On 13 Feb 2026 at 05:57:17 PM, Th=C3=A9o Lebrun wrote: >>> The one about DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL is already part of this review cycle >>> (see bot's reply to 5/8) and already incorporated. I'm also considering >>> the possibility a change that make this no longer relevant anyways, but >>> I'm not sure as it was planned as a follow up. >> >> Yes indeed, Jakub's LLM pointed it out. I looked into this for a bit and >> couldn't find any good solution. In the end I couldn't find any >> measurable performance improvement so no need to worry about it (on my >> platform). I guess the only valid option is to reopen >> if `running && (!!old_prog !=3D !!new_prog)`? > > yeah, which I guess is fine, after all. > Also, this way at some point we may even consider to remove the xdp > headroom for the skb case and reserve less like NET_SKB_PAD. This would > have the extra bonus to not require a full page for 1500 mtu with 4k > pages. I will be adding a close/open cycle with the XSK pool introduction. That is why in my branch I preferred to lean in the direction of not closing/reopening in the XDP program load (to avoid 2x reopens on AF_XDP zero-copy). I get your point though. Thanks, -- Th=C3=A9o Lebrun, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com