netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next V2 06/11] net/mlx5e: SHAMPO: Separate pool for headers

lists.openwall.net		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 linux-cve-announce 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]

Message-ID: <CAHS8izNPJjAwbVwDnVQwHmjTKfxSqbt-jEnNzcWzTfQNGr9Lag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 16:24:36 -0700
From: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
To: Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, 
	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, 
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, 
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>, 
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, 
	Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...dia.com>, Mark Bloch <mbloch@...dia.com>, Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>, 
	Cosmin Ratiu <cratiu@...dia.com>, Dragos Tatulea <dtatulea@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V2 06/11] net/mlx5e: SHAMPO: Separate pool for headers

On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 4:09 PM Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On 22 May 15:30, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >On Fri, 23 May 2025 00:41:21 +0300 Tariq Toukan wrote:
> >> Allocate a separate page pool for headers when SHAMPO is enabled.
> >> This will be useful for adding support to zc page pool, which has to be
> >> different from the headers page pool.
> >
> >Could you explain why always allocate a separate pool?
>
> Better flow management, 0 conditional code on data path to alloc/return
> header buffers, since in mlx5 we already have separate paths to handle
> header, we don't have/need bnxt_separate_head_pool() and
> rxr->need_head_pool spread across the code..
>
> Since we alloc and return pages in bulks, it makes more sense to manage
> headers and data in separate pools if we are going to do it anyway for
> "undreadable_pools", and when there's no performance impact.
>

Are you allocating full pages for each incoming header (which is much
smaller than a page)? Or are you reusing the same PAGE_SIZE from the
page_pool to store multiple headers?

-- 
Thanks,
Mina