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  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]
Date:   Fri, 8 May 2020 14:27:08 +0200
From:   Björn Töpel <>
To:     Maxim Mikityanskiy <>,
        Björn Töpel <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 10/14] mlx5, xsk: migrate to new

On 2020-05-08 13:55, Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
> On 2020-05-07 13:42, Björn Töpel wrote:
>> From: Björn Töpel <>
>> Use the new MEM_TYPE_XSK_BUFF_POOL API in lieu of MEM_TYPE_ZERO_COPY in
>> mlx5e. It allows to drop a lot of code from the driver (which is now
>> common in AF_XDP core and was related to XSK RX frame allocation, DMA
>> mapping, etc.) and slightly improve performance.
>> rfc->v1: Put back the sanity check for XSK params, use XSK API to get
>>           the total headroom size. (Maxim)
>> Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel <>
>> Signed-off-by: Maxim Mikityanskiy <>
> I did some functional and performance tests.
> Unfortunately, something is wrong with the traffic: I get zeros in 
> XDP_TX, XDP_PASS and XSK instead of packet data. I set DEBUG_HEXDUMP in 
> xdpsock, and it shows the packets of the correct length, but all bytes 
> are 0 after these patches. It might be wrong xdp_buff pointers, however, 
> I still have to investigate it. Björn, does it also affect Intel 
> drivers, or is it Mellanox-specific?

Are you getting zeros for TX, PASS *and* in xdpsock (REDIRECT:ed 
packets), or just TX and PASS?

No, I get correct packet data for AF_XDP zero-copy XDP_REDIRECT,
XDP_PASS, and XDP_TX for Intel.

> For performance, I got +1.0..+1.2 Mpps on RX. TX performance got better 
> after Björn inlined the relevant UMEM functions, however, there is still 
> a slight decrease compared to the old code. I'll try to find the 
> possible reason, but the good thing is that it's not significant anymore.

Ok, so for Rx mlx5 it's the same as for i40e. Good! :-)

How much decrease on Tx?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists