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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAL+tcoDWU4tZZJmXzSbLjdTJEpabCaDkN2gr8Oo5MQU4QyVZfw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 17:14:28 +0800
From: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, 
	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, 
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>, 
	Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 2/6] net: add add indirect call wrapper in skb_release_head_state()

On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 3:41 PM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 12:02 AM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Sorry, I've been away from the keyboard for a few days. I think it's
> > fair to let us (who are currently working on the xsk improvement) post
> > a simple patch based on the series.
> >
> > Regarding what you mentioned that 1% is a noisy number, I disagree.
> > The overall numbers are improved, rather than only one or small part
> > of them. I've done a few tests under different servers, so I believe
> > what I've seen. BTW, xdpsock is the test tool that gives a stable
> > number especially when running on the physical machine.
> >
> > @ Alexander I think I can post that patch with more test numbers and
> > your 'suggested-by' tag included if you have no objection:) Or if you
> > wish you could do it on your own, please feel free to send one then :)
>
> The series focus was on something bringing 100% improvement.
> The 1% figure _was_ noise.
>
> I think you are mistaken on what a "SIgned-off-by: Eric Dumazet
> <edumazet@...gle.com>" means.
>
> I am not opposed to a patch that you will support by yourself.
> I am opposed to you trying to let me take responsibility for something
> I have no time/desire to support.
>
> I added the indirect call wrapper mostly at the last moment, so that
> anyone wanting to test my series
> like I described (UDP workload) would not have to mention the sock_wfree cost.

Eric, I totally understand what you meant and thanks for bringing up
this idea :) Agree that one patch should do one thing at a time. It's
clean. If people smell something wrong in the future, they can easily
bisect and revert. So what I replied was that I decided to add a
follow-up patch to only support the xsk scenario.

Thanks,
Jason

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ