From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-dl1-f51.google.com (mail-dl1-f51.google.com [74.125.82.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8ABE288AD for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2026 06:00:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=74.125.82.51 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769493632; cv=none; b=gh3Yfmua3JCHIIxhZf1UkovUSenOqS8kBap/XEsIHpv5nTouTLqZ4QoADASLNpnAeUf6N+rmVFxVV67rXKFQ62Pavn9RhfPALaeLF7yoDVLaCEamFE+jJHsdSr/SoKd4l0QclDoSTGZU1sXaL2dGzyAhT14A+QQ6K8J+2fhIma4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769493632; c=relaxed/simple; bh=v/u+rBX4luP4l2y0k4d4MJwxSQLjgxjIcVpFBIL6lHQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=b7XsrpuoTDuiSHfZCjDQ3L+AWLvQlp+ZB/MR4fzRbPTss4IVd84+/ZfHqNqq4J3Z1A5/1EPk0sm5rx5XOovvfx12nXfk4lqLfPyHmtALIMVx8qq88/c+vgSZSFtADhvUgrFYxfe5Mw1R9z7V9XBs0cL5to+ej8PzHseFVJFXS7c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=DLDqdHPf; arc=none smtp.client-ip=74.125.82.51 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="DLDqdHPf" Received: by mail-dl1-f51.google.com with SMTP id a92af1059eb24-11f36012fb2so7484145c88.1 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2026 22:00:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1769493630; x=1770098430; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=a803xA0SW+lSUQWToabOiMzbo1P7cUc3kCdEW2eaQec=; b=DLDqdHPfWk0o+gSD5pgARfeKHy2TUdAaS8uw1NmauBipNaULr5DL+mLTBxcMKTkjxG +w5gjtRDs8DR1RtwVb9nwlv7k+E1OtsCPJHtHONYHtT4J+xnSMPhA3VCb4CJe8ycczuL ENFpSLbU5Adck6SIVvpmOJOok+lWIPro6yf7zoPVJONnljqQkIEdVR9sALcLQ+q7EKSc 7STZ3CSGsWs21Swpq2QhkaTIzMZc1lpqNNyXJAlMWlTLoT8JYzcKcJnVJ3HzGRiSskV3 K/vIJ1pcgleYZHjGwTu/c0OxE510Mvuzwk1kpR+elyWCeiOr5GzExE5p7ak0Kr4t6Yxq EzBQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1769493630; x=1770098430; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=a803xA0SW+lSUQWToabOiMzbo1P7cUc3kCdEW2eaQec=; b=N0sOc+UAjnr2Dh37ZSpGdsZM3WKgmy21qNcEXwlZWdR8UMaqpoi9DHHnAkQTlTRVUi FT2USlY+ltDMr0SJhLKOAVq3jTPcCY7UOf43BWEzHfevobQE4HOrQlbBUcjCooDnqNuG rYkkndl56Jz2dQpFMiDeAIijo/XFkn2e9gbB7AY+/E9jPmofwfEtHiXyGrESt0EUqjwr 3QvPLykQV+cIUmQWRVbfOBkFkPHlmaVLCA3mn4Zsvgz5ByHMulQ5FF+9DMUBmz2hxJcZ OGTW/9Vs2EwNrdePEVW+Qh51+Apco9aTe1OklD1dPBMVpU1FcRYaOc10O4/fFwWwNowi tVhA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUAM+aHbGE5jGleOTmB5clX9AMzJ64fgAA2En2QkaS3ttoz0yBha2qyQVXR3HMFJBPfDPnNQ0E=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxonDvL2VeXZKMWolUKVvoUSRFApjNotNcjKQO7ZZ3fh2FEw9TF i4hb3v8VYkQlMtvfTrPKjmktkqgZDBiPqIjJHQKD61CsoR+EktOfNX4= X-Gm-Gg: AZuq6aIMXOkskzP9AtVBfn1yZDaBkHwR5n6EMo8//v9WgZhJn8vKt+KNtEoq3uNWKTh gIGq9RG9O6U1k9eAPjH5BXHs6xIErWhkAzeN7iwCzc1ctbXdtyPQY4X/SMEdxjete/6iic2q1Ii TqjYcdU2uU5S+q2lVWAfzPquSCcaoL7bRlp9u6ZIHhA9xby/BThDvBqy45xYB49mFd5UJ5DiQQN g9I6bPWz3YTUZvLVAYM/Hf6zEEiR2nP8fO+ZzSSDnd3dPs/wH1rj9b1CMqr8JoIatkYPvsNyXZH 9aVVJ9qU994mAXpz463qgcLN/OXSRRZEpCRdVbryD8k2j9Mct4+vvAaiFyQJD6wO1EB05btiLnP ojUUBS6fbxeYVQhT1S8PFpBRNOII+tIg94cD59Gy8VnJJyYYibBtdyoB7wP2MBK8pGtain0WVTy enUhN/cnDGpu+fe7wp5vIq8jDfAaRotV7NmMl60LEZyxdDDbjaVeA4T0U0KIDmEuM2wamsJz4q3 m6Xqv+qHADdHMzC X-Received: by 2002:a05:7022:20f:b0:123:2d00:1668 with SMTP id a92af1059eb24-124a00e861emr496547c88.49.1769493629755; Mon, 26 Jan 2026 22:00:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (c-76-102-12-149.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [76.102.12.149]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a92af1059eb24-1247d90d13esm21240114c88.2.2026.01.26.22.00.29 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 26 Jan 2026 22:00:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 22:00:28 -0800 From: Stanislav Fomichev To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: Bobby Eshleman , Mina Almasry , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Paolo Abeni , Simon Horman , Kuniyuki Iwashima , Willem de Bruijn , Neal Cardwell , David Ahern , Arnd Bergmann , Jonathan Corbet , Andrew Lunn , Shuah Khan , Donald Hunter , Stanislav Fomichev , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, asml.silence@gmail.com, matttbe@kernel.org, skhawaja@google.com, Bobby Eshleman Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v10 0/5] net: devmem: improve cpu cost of RX token management Message-ID: References: <20260115-scratch-bobbyeshleman-devmem-tcp-token-upstream-v10-0-686d0af71978@meta.com> <20260120170749.101e8bcc@kernel.org> <20260126173124.1f0bb98e@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260126173124.1f0bb98e@kernel.org> On 01/26, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 10:45:22 -0800 Bobby Eshleman wrote: > > I'm onboard with improving what we have since it helps all of us > > currently using this API, though I'm not opposed to discussing a > > redesign in another thread/RFC. I do see the attraction to locating the > > core logic in one place and possibly reducing some complexity around > > socket/binding relationships. > > > > FWIW regarding nl, I do see it supports rtnl lock-free operations via > > '62256f98f244 rtnetlink: add RTNL_FLAG_DOIT_UNLOCKED' and routing was > > recently made lockless with that. I don't see / know of any fast path > > precedent. I'm aware there are some things I'm not sure about being > > relevant performance-wise, like hitting skb alloc an additional time > > every release batch. I'd want to do some minimal latency comparisons > > between that path and sockopt before diving head-first. > > FTR I'm not really pushing Netlink specifically, it may work it > may not. Perhaps some other ioctl-y thing exists. Just in general > setsockopt() on a specific socket feels increasingly awkward for > buffer flow. Maybe y'all disagree. > > I thought I'd clarify since I may be seen as "Mr Netlink Everywhere" :) >From my side, if we do a completely new uapi, my preference would be on an af_xdp like mapped rings (presumably on a netlink socket?) to completely avoid the user-kernel copies.