[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211206080337.13fc9ae7@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 08:03:37 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Emmanuel Deloget <emmanuel.deloget@....link>,
Louis Amas <louis.amas@....link>, andrii@...nel.org,
ast@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
davem@...emloft.net, hawk@...nel.org, john.fastabend@...il.com,
kafai@...com, kpsingh@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mw@...ihalf.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, songliubraving@...com,
yhs@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: mvpp2: fix XDP rx queues registering
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 15:42:47 +0000 Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 04:37:20PM +0100, Emmanuel Deloget wrote:
> > On 10/11/2021 15:41, Louis Amas wrote:
> > > The registration of XDP queue information is incorrect because the
> > > RX queue id we use is invalid. When port->id == 0 it appears to works
> > > as expected yet it's no longer the case when port->id != 0.
> > >
> > > When we register the XDP rx queue information (using
> > > xdp_rxq_info_reg() in function mvpp2_rxq_init()) we tell them to use
> > > rxq->id as the queue id. This value iscomputed as:
> > > rxq->id = port->id * max_rxq_count + queue_id
> > >
> > > where max_rxq_count depends on the device version. In the MB case,
> > > this value is 32, meaning that rx queues on eth2 are numbered from
> > > 32 to 35 - there are four of them.
> > >
> > > Clearly, this is not the per-port queue id that XDP is expecting:
> > > it wants a value in the range [0..3]. It shall directly use queue_id
> > > which is stored in rxq->logic_rxq -- so let's use that value instead.
> > >
> > > This is consistent with the remaining part of the code in
> > > mvpp2_rxq_init().
> > Is there any update on this patch ? Without it, XDP only partially work on a
> > MACCHIATOBin (read: it works on some ports, not on others, as described in
> > our analysis sent together with the original patch).
>
> I suspect if you *didn't* thread your updated patch to your previous
> submission, then it would end up with a separate entry in
> patchwork.kernel.org,
Indeed, it's easier to keep track of patches which weren't posted
as a reply in a thread, at least for me.
> and the netdev maintainers will notice that the
> patch is ready for inclusion, having been reviewed by Marcin.
In this case I _think_ it was dropped because it didn't apply.
Please rebase on top of net/master and repost if the changes is still
needed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists