[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170811161223.6808008d@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 16:12:23 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, mst@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V2 3/3] tap: XDP support
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 19:41:18 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> This patch tries to implement XDP for tun. The implementation was
> split into two parts:
>
> - fast path: small and no gso packet. We try to do XDP at page level
> before build_skb(). For XDP_TX, since creating/destroying queues
> were completely under control of userspace, it was implemented
> through generic XDP helper after skb has been built. This could be
> optimized in the future.
> - slow path: big or gso packet. We try to do it after skb was created
> through generic XDP helpers.
>
> Test were done through pktgen with small packets.
>
> xdp1 test shows ~41.1% improvement:
>
> Before: ~1.7Mpps
> After: ~2.3Mpps
>
> xdp_redirect to ixgbe shows ~60% improvement:
>
> Before: ~0.8Mpps
> After: ~1.38Mpps
>
> Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Looks OK to me now :)
Out of curiosity, you say the build_skb() is for "small packets", and it
seems you are always reserving the 256B regardless of XDP being
installed. Does this have no performance impact on non-XDP case?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists