[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89iJcWc+Qi7xVcsnLOA1q9qjtqZLL5W4YQg=SND3tX=sLgw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2025 08:00:26 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>, Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: increase skb_defer_max default to 128
On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 7:50 AM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 11:47 PM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 7:37 AM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 4:30 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > skb_defer_max value is very conservative, and can be increased
> > > > to avoid too many calls to kick_defer_list_purge().
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> > >
> > > I was thinking if we ought to enlarge NAPI_SKB_CACHE_SIZE() to 128 as
> > > well since the freeing skb happens in the softirq context, which I
> > > came up with when I was doing the optimization for af_xdp. That is
> > > also used to defer freeing skb to obtain some improvement in
> > > performance. I'd like to know your opinion on this, thanks in advance!
> >
> > Makes sense. I even had a patch like this in my queue ;)
>
> Great to hear that. Look forward to seeing it soon :)
Oh please go ahead !
Powered by blists - more mailing lists