[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <PAXPR04MB918545B92E493CB57CDE612B89579@PAXPR04MB9185.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:26:31 +0000
From: Shenwei Wang <shenwei.wang@....com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC: Joakim Zhang <qiangqing.zhang@....com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"imx@...ts.linux.dev" <imx@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: fec: add initial XDP support
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2022 8:23 AM
> To: Shenwei Wang <shenwei.wang@....com>
> Cc: Joakim Zhang <qiangqing.zhang@....com>; David S. Miller
> <davem@...emloft.net>; Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>; Jakub
> Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>; Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>; Alexei
> Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>; Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>;
> Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>; John Fastabend
> <john.fastabend@...il.com>; netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org; imx@...ts.linux.dev
> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: fec: add initial XDP support
>
> Caution: EXT Email
>
> > I actually did some compare testing regarding the page pool for normal
> > traffic. So far I don't see significant improvement in the current
> > implementation. The performance for large packets improves a little,
> > and the performance for small packets get a little worse.
>
> What hardware was this for? imx51? imx6? imx7 Vybrid? These all use the FEC.
I tested on imx8qxp platform. It is ARM64.
>
> By small packets, do you mean those under the copybreak limit?
>
> Please provide some benchmark numbers with your next patchset.
Yes, the packet size is 64 bytes and it is under the copybreak limit. As the impact is not significant, I would prefer to remove the copybreak logic.
Thanks,
Shenwei
>
> Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists