[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210125122933.GB18646@ranger.igk.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 13:29:33 +0100
From: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>
To: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Cc: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@...hat.com>, ast@...nel.org,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv16 bpf-next 1/6] bpf: run devmap xdp_prog on flush
instead of bulk enqueue
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 12:21:26PM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 02:38:40PM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> >> >> out:
> >> >> + drops = cnt - sent;
> >> >> bq->count = 0;
> >> >>
> >> >> trace_xdp_devmap_xmit(bq->dev_rx, dev, sent, drops, err);
> >> >> bq->dev_rx = NULL;
> >> >> + bq->xdp_prog = NULL;
> >> >
> >> > One more question, do you really have to do that per each bq_xmit_all
> >> > call? Couldn't you clear it in __dev_flush ?
> >> >
> >> > Or IOW - what's the rationale behind storing xdp_prog in
> >> > xdp_dev_bulk_queue. Why can't you propagate the dst->xdp_prog and rely on
> >> > that without that local pointer?
> >> >
> >> > You probably have an answer for that, so maybe include it in commit
> >> > message.
> >> >
> >> > BTW same question for clearing dev_rx. To me this will be the same for all
> >> > bq_xmit_all() calls that will happen within same napi.
> >>
> >> I think you're right: When bq_xmit_all() is called from bq_enqueue(),
> >> another packet will always be enqueued immediately after, so clearing
> >> out all of those things in bq_xmit_all() is redundant. This also
> >> includes the list_del on bq->flush_node, BTW.
> >>
> >> And while we're getting into e micro-optimisations: In bq_enqueue() we
> >> have two checks:
> >>
> >> if (!bq->dev_rx)
> >> bq->dev_rx = dev_rx;
> >>
> >> bq->q[bq->count++] = xdpf;
> >>
> >> if (!bq->flush_node.prev)
> >> list_add(&bq->flush_node, flush_list);
> >>
> >>
> >> those two if() checks can be collapsed into one, since the list and the
> >> dev_rx field are only ever modified together. This will also be the case
> >> for bq->xdp_prog, so putting all three under the same check in
> >> bq_enqueue() and only clearing them in __dev_flush() would be a win, I
> >> suppose - nice catch! :)
Huh, nice further optimization! :) Of course I agree on that.
> >
> > Thanks for the advice, so how about modify it like:
>
> Yup, exactly! :)
>
> -Toke
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists