Message ID | 20231223025554.2316836-1-aleksander.lobakin@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Christmas 3-serie XDP for idpf (+generic stuff) | expand |
Alexander Lobakin wrote: > I was highly asked to send this WIP before the holidays to trigger > some discussions at least for the generic parts. > > This all depends on libie[0] and WB-on-ITR fix[1]. The RFC does not > guarantee to work perfectly, but at least regular XDP seems to work > for me... > > In fact, here are 3 separate series: > * 01-08: convert idpf to libie and make it more sane; > * 09-25: add XDP to idpf; > * 26-34: add XSk to idpf. > > Most people may want to be interested only in the following generic > changes: > * 11: allow attaching already registered memory models to XDP RxQ info; > * 12-13: generic helpers for adding a frag to &xdp_buff and converting > it to an skb; > * 14: get rid of xdp_frame::mem.id, allow mixing pages from different > page_pools within one &xdp_buff/&xdp_frame; > * 15: some Page Pool helper; > * 18: it's for libie, but I wanted to talk about XDP_TX bulking; > * 26: same as 13, but for converting XSK &xdp_buff to skb. > > The rest is up to you, driver-specific stuff is pretty boring sometimes. > > I'll be polishing and finishing this all starting January 3rd and then > preparing and sending sane series, some early feedback never hurts tho. > > Merry Yule! > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20231213112835.2262651-1-aleksander.lobakin@intel.com > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20231215193721.425087-1-michal.kubiak@intel.com This is great. Thanks for sharing the entire series. Which SHA1 should we apply this to? I'm having a hard time applying cleanly. The libie v7 series applied cleanly on bc044ae9d64b. Which I chose only based on the follow-on page pool patch. But that base commit causes too many conflicts when applying this. Patch 6 had a trivial one in idpf_rx_singleq_clean (`skb = rx_q->skb`). But patch 14 has so many conflicts in page_pool.c, that I'm clearly on the wrong track trying to fix up manually.
From: Willem De Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 15:23:41 -0500 > Alexander Lobakin wrote: >> I was highly asked to send this WIP before the holidays to trigger >> some discussions at least for the generic parts. >> >> This all depends on libie[0] and WB-on-ITR fix[1]. The RFC does not >> guarantee to work perfectly, but at least regular XDP seems to work >> for me... >> >> In fact, here are 3 separate series: >> * 01-08: convert idpf to libie and make it more sane; >> * 09-25: add XDP to idpf; >> * 26-34: add XSk to idpf. >> >> Most people may want to be interested only in the following generic >> changes: >> * 11: allow attaching already registered memory models to XDP RxQ info; >> * 12-13: generic helpers for adding a frag to &xdp_buff and converting >> it to an skb; >> * 14: get rid of xdp_frame::mem.id, allow mixing pages from different >> page_pools within one &xdp_buff/&xdp_frame; >> * 15: some Page Pool helper; >> * 18: it's for libie, but I wanted to talk about XDP_TX bulking; >> * 26: same as 13, but for converting XSK &xdp_buff to skb. >> >> The rest is up to you, driver-specific stuff is pretty boring sometimes. >> >> I'll be polishing and finishing this all starting January 3rd and then >> preparing and sending sane series, some early feedback never hurts tho. >> >> Merry Yule! >> >> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20231213112835.2262651-1-aleksander.lobakin@intel.com >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20231215193721.425087-1-michal.kubiak@intel.com > > This is great. Thanks for sharing the entire series. > > Which SHA1 should we apply this to? I'm having a hard time applying > cleanly. > > The libie v7 series applied cleanly on bc044ae9d64b. Which I chose > only based on the follow-on page pool patch. > > But that base commit causes too many conflicts when applying this. > Patch 6 had a trivial one in idpf_rx_singleq_clean (`skb = rx_q->skb`). > But patch 14 has so many conflicts in page_pool.c, that I'm clearly > on the wrong track trying to fix up manually. net-next was updated while I was preparing the series. I also did a couple changes in the basic libie code, but a new rev wasn't sent. Please just use my open GH[0]. [0] https://github.com/alobakin/linux/tree/idpf-libie Thanks, Olek
Alexander Lobakin wrote: > From: Willem De Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com> > Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 15:23:41 -0500 > > > Alexander Lobakin wrote: > >> I was highly asked to send this WIP before the holidays to trigger > >> some discussions at least for the generic parts. > >> > >> This all depends on libie[0] and WB-on-ITR fix[1]. The RFC does not > >> guarantee to work perfectly, but at least regular XDP seems to work > >> for me... > >> > >> In fact, here are 3 separate series: > >> * 01-08: convert idpf to libie and make it more sane; > >> * 09-25: add XDP to idpf; > >> * 26-34: add XSk to idpf. > >> > >> Most people may want to be interested only in the following generic > >> changes: > >> * 11: allow attaching already registered memory models to XDP RxQ info; > >> * 12-13: generic helpers for adding a frag to &xdp_buff and converting > >> it to an skb; > >> * 14: get rid of xdp_frame::mem.id, allow mixing pages from different > >> page_pools within one &xdp_buff/&xdp_frame; > >> * 15: some Page Pool helper; > >> * 18: it's for libie, but I wanted to talk about XDP_TX bulking; > >> * 26: same as 13, but for converting XSK &xdp_buff to skb. > >> > >> The rest is up to you, driver-specific stuff is pretty boring sometimes. > >> > >> I'll be polishing and finishing this all starting January 3rd and then > >> preparing and sending sane series, some early feedback never hurts tho. > >> > >> Merry Yule! > >> > >> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20231213112835.2262651-1-aleksander.lobakin@intel.com > >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20231215193721.425087-1-michal.kubiak@intel.com > > > > This is great. Thanks for sharing the entire series. > > > > Which SHA1 should we apply this to? I'm having a hard time applying > > cleanly. > > > > The libie v7 series applied cleanly on bc044ae9d64b. Which I chose > > only based on the follow-on page pool patch. > > > > But that base commit causes too many conflicts when applying this. > > Patch 6 had a trivial one in idpf_rx_singleq_clean (`skb = rx_q->skb`). > > But patch 14 has so many conflicts in page_pool.c, that I'm clearly > > on the wrong track trying to fix up manually. > > net-next was updated while I was preparing the series. I also did a > couple changes in the basic libie code, but a new rev wasn't sent. > Please just use my open GH[0]. > > [0] https://github.com/alobakin/linux/tree/idpf-libie Even better, thanks. I'll use that to run my basic XSK tests.