[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKgT0Ucazf2_zNoZXuaA_YRExezpT=85pGG2b9_D629FUHj4RQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:45:07 -0700
From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com>
Cc: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@...hat.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, shayagr@...zon.com,
"Jubran, Samih" <sameehj@...zon.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@...hat.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
"Karlsson, Magnus" <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
Tirthendu <tirthendu.sarkar@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 bpf-next 01/14] net: skbuff: add data_len field to skb_shared_info
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 12:18 PM Lorenzo Bianconi
<lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 29/06/2021 20.37, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 11:18:38 -0700 Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 10:08 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > ack, I agree. I will fix it in v10.
> > > > > Why is XDP mb incompatible with LRO? I thought that was one of the use
> > > > > cases (mentioned by Willem IIRC).
> > > > XDP is meant to be a per packet operation with support for TX and
> > > > REDIRECT, and LRO isn't routable. So we could put together a large LRO
> > > > frame but we wouldn't be able to break it apart again. If we allow
> > > > that then we are going to need a ton more exception handling added to
> > > > the XDP paths.
> > > >
> > > > As far as GSO it would require setting many more fields in order to
> > > > actually make it offloadable by any hardware.
> > > It would require more work, but TSO seems to be explicitly stated
> > > as what the series builds towards (in the cover letter). It's fine
> > > to make choices we'd need to redo later, I guess, I'm just trying
> > > to understand the why.
> >
> > This is also my understanding that LRO and TSO is what this patchset is
> > working towards.
> >
> > Sorry, I don't agree or understand this requested change.
> >
> >
>
> My understanding here is to use gso_size to store paged length of the
> xdp multi-buffer. When converting the xdp_frame to a skb we will need
> to overwrite it to support gro/lro. Is my understanding correct?
Yes, I was thinking just of the xdp_buff, not the xdp_frame. My focus
for right now is mostly around the Rx side of things, xdp_buff to skb,
and around the XDP_TX path. If we want to drop/move where we keep the
data length when doing the conversion I would be fine with that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists