From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 D7E7E15748A; Thu, 1 Aug 2024 08:15:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722500134; cv=none; b=PXcKjGYYxzUujVovK+9rTOMPNrxeeJMiDZreTHRXVYPqD4PDph8DscKsJ+esJ5GghChQ7WdCv+oMHJfrG57mKuejNLpefzcgFodk7fjpvQqjKGI/ntJSoPW1d/IAsFYC4L5maQ2jt5m9s4LXmHN9G4UFIJV6/6KGvhgao25khrY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722500134; c=relaxed/simple; bh=D0BRTDKOL4ZwOxBIvmqwChx6SK9IgZhrOoIUpIoIr6s=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=EVul6i/17xyFP+CiXgXWdEd2kNfjaMkWYPD5EQQ8GIgxIcS8xO5j09pY06TYHmm94LmvvxG8lrG1KUX2xqEf4QInQJFXS+A8QSx7e2+U48Z3yUXndDGoVn25pw3RAGFOUdJo9bTNUff8x13PNfaz+fbYdwxQIXVdsUiEkol58dc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=EXhvcHMM; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="EXhvcHMM" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0F8FCC4AF0A; Thu, 1 Aug 2024 08:15:33 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1722500134; bh=D0BRTDKOL4ZwOxBIvmqwChx6SK9IgZhrOoIUpIoIr6s=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=EXhvcHMMa7wLCwAmyAaKJozjxb+FP5FormbfFAsDQIujiZX7/RP2q+LrP3MXfktZ9 dC7f0zMu4NJmWmZp2yzL05tLud0ykUVpsL7mdZj4NkC3Vo/PR1LO4cQ0dhdmWMJyvb z0jxTjraCKhhrzht5s3VCG1Awqtm5D07H2n0rryh90VTUsLlPTJZ9bqEmGiWDnbuzf xnsDQx8wVEsb4ALsAHiw6gRH1ky1R88gXGox1LbVstDCxeyCIcQ3cMbsRPrmkKKT8m fPla8XxGkYBwER7fn73hRCu11iM4oVDHGu0hSGtM/E3L0xGy9s7/BzZKEJoG8quP/T JbXhafXFtEZdw== Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 10:15:31 +0200 From: Lorenzo Bianconi To: Elad Yifee Cc: Jakub Kicinski , Felix Fietkau , Sean Wang , Mark Lee , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Paolo Abeni , Matthias Brugger , AngeloGioacchino Del Regno , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, Daniel Golle , Joe Damato Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/2] net: ethernet: mtk_eth_soc: improve RX performance Message-ID: References: <20240729183038.1959-1-eladwf@gmail.com> <20240731183718.1278048e@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0eNalxqZ9keOVn65" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: --0eNalxqZ9keOVn65 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 10:30=E2=80=AFAM Lorenzo Bianconi 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 >=20 > > > 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_poo= l 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. --0eNalxqZ9keOVn65 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEABYKAB0WIQTquNwa3Txd3rGGn7Y6cBh0uS2trAUCZqtEIwAKCRA6cBh0uS2t rKCEAQCYVsSLb/+cpyxgo+0vejfJAGAfcQ4rWZE6BwZQX9gzLwD9H8bmdVfHms3q rcqMITuGtKfT6S7dKQJa0nlKm1qxcQc= =59Ad -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0eNalxqZ9keOVn65--