linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] net: ethernet: ti: cpsw: add XDP support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190418104111.559a0e74@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:41:11 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org>
Cc:     grygorii.strashko@...com, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org, hawk@...nel.org,
        xdp-newbies@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        aniel@...earbox.net, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] net: ethernet: ti: cpsw: add XDP support

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 12:40:10 +0300, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:
> >work?  The stack's TX ring has a lock, and can be used from any CPU,
> >while XDP TX rings are per-PCU, no?  
> Yes and no.
> am572 has more queues then CPU num, How I can choose tx queue not based on CPU
> num? It's always shared and has to have lock, and cpdma is done in this way.

Oh, I see, you already have another lock.

> Here another thing bothering me, I send it to queue 0 always, instead of
> taking cpu num. Not sure about this, but I expect to have some tx queue
> not bind to cpu and didn't find a way it can be changed dynamically in
> redirect.

Not sure I understand :)