Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/2] net: ethernet: mtk_eth_soc: improve RX performance

[Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1608 bytes --]

> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 10:30 AM Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > nope, I added page_pool support even for non-XDP mode for hw that does
> > not support HW-LRO. I guess mtk folks can correct me if I am wrong but
> > IIRC there were some hw limirations on mt7986/mt7988 for HW-LRO, so I am
> > not sure if it can be supported.
> I know, but if we want to add support for HWLRO alongside XDP on NETSYS2/3,
> we need to prevent the PP use (for HWLRO allocations) and enable it
> only when there's
> an XDP program.
> I've been told HWLRO works on the MTK SDK version.

ack, but in this case, please provide even the HW-LRO support in the same
series. Moreover, I am not sure if it is performant enough or not, we could
increase the page_pool order.
Moreover I guess we should be sure the HW-LRO works on all NETSYS2/3 hws
revisions.

Regards,
Lorenzo

> 
> > > Other than that, for HWLRO we need contiguous pages of different order
> > > than the PP, so the creation of PP
> > > basically prevents the use of HWLRO.
> > > So we solve this LRO problem and get a performance boost with this
> > > simple change.
> > >
> > > Lorenzo's suggestion would probably improve the performance of the XDP
> > > path and we should try that nonetheless.
> >
> > nope, I mean to improve peformances even for non-XDP case with page_pool frag
> > APIs.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Lorenzo
> Yes of course it would improve it for non-XDP case if we still use PP
> for non-XDP,
> but my point is we shouldn't, mainly because of HWLRO, but also the
> extra unnecessary code.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]