netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next 2/3] ice: drop page splitting and recycling

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aIuaq72FjtkEKRDr@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 18:32:43 +0200
From: Michal Kubiak <michal.kubiak@...el.com>
To: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
CC: <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
	<aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>, <larysa.zaremba@...el.com>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
	<anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next 2/3] ice: drop page splitting
 and recycling

On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 09:17:51AM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/31/2025 8:56 AM, Michal Kubiak wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 03:48:36PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 7/4/2025 9:18 AM, Michal Kubiak wrote:
> >>> @@ -1100,14 +994,10 @@ static void ice_put_rx_mbuf(struct ice_rx_ring *rx_ring, struct xdp_buff *xdp,
> >>>  	for (i = 0; i < post_xdp_frags; i++) {
> >>>  		buf = &rx_ring->rx_buf[idx];
> >>>  
> >>> -		if (verdict & (ICE_XDP_TX | ICE_XDP_REDIR)) {
> >>> -			ice_rx_buf_adjust_pg_offset(buf, xdp->frame_sz);
> >>> +		if (verdict & (ICE_XDP_TX | ICE_XDP_REDIR))
> >>>  			*xdp_xmit |= verdict;
> >>> -		} else if (verdict & ICE_XDP_CONSUMED) {
> >>> +		else if (verdict & ICE_XDP_CONSUMED)
> >>>  			buf->pagecnt_bias++;
> >>
> >> Why do we still keep pagecnt_bias++ here?
> > 
> > My mistake. You're right - as I checked, we never use pagecnt_bias after
> > applying this patch.
> > I will remove pagecnt_bias completely in v2.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Michal
> > 
> 
> I think Olek was also aware of this, but please make sure the v2 has
> fixed the errors with 9K MTU as well :D

Sure! I've already synced with Olek about the large MTU regression.
BTW, thanks for your report and detailed testing. TBH, I didn't run the
iperf with 9K MTU before. :)

Before sending the v2, I'll definitely test it the way you suggested.