[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6913010d-2fd6-6713-94e9-8f5b8ad4b708@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 08:44:33 -0700
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@...hat.com>,
Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>
Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
alardam@...il.com, magnus.karlsson@...el.com,
bjorn.topel@...el.com, andrii.nakryiko@...il.com, kuba@...nel.org,
ast@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
hawk@...nel.org, jonathan.lemon@...il.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, maciejromanfijalkowski@...il.com,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
Marek Majtyka <marekx.majtyka@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf 1/5] net: ethtool: add xdp properties flag set
On 12/9/20 4:52 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> But I have redesigned the ndo_xdp_xmit call to take a bulk of packets
> (up-to 16) so it should not be a problem to solve this by sharing
> TX-queue and talking a lock per 16 packets. I still recommend that,
> for fallback case, you allocated a number a TX-queue and distribute
> this across CPUs to avoid hitting a congested lock (above measurements
> are the optimal non-congested atomic lock operation)
I have been meaning to ask you why 16 for the XDP batching? If the
netdev budget is 64, why not something higher like 32 or 64?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists