[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHS8izNEVecwoh+f1nUBmTOGHKS+A6Up8R-0KTFMSwPn4+VzdA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 16:50:14 -0700
From: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
To: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, andrew+netdev@...n.ch, horms@...nel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, sdf@...ichev.me, dw@...idwei.uk,
michael.chan@...adcom.com, dtatulea@...dia.com, ap420073@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 02/23] docs: ethtool: document that rx_buf_len
must control payload lengths
On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 6:56 AM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com> wrote:
>
> From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
>
> Document the semantics of the rx_buf_len ethtool ring param.
> Clarify its meaning in case of HDS, where driver may have
> two separate buffer pools.
>
> The various zero-copy TCP Rx schemes we have suffer from memory
nit: 'we have suffer' sounds weird, probably meant just 'suffer'.
> management overhead. Specifically applications aren't too impressed
> with the number of 4kB buffers they have to juggle. Zero-copy
> TCP makes most sense with larger memory transfers so using
> 16kB or 32kB buffers (with the help of HW-GRO) feels more
> natural.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
Reviewed-by: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
--
Thanks,
Mina
Powered by blists - more mailing lists