Re: [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP support

On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 16:46:08 -0700 Eric Dumazet wrote: > This XDP_TX thing was one of the XDP marketing stuff, but there is > absolutely no documentation on it, warning users about possible > limitations/outcomes. I will take care of documentation for the XDP project.

RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP support

;xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com>; David S. Miller <da...@davemloft.net> > Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP > support > > Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 07:14:27PM +0

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP support

Alexei Starovoitov wrote: On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:41:12PM +, Rustad, Mark D wrote: That said, I can see that you have tried to keep the original code path pretty much intact. I would note that you introduced rcu calls into the !bpf path that would never

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP support

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:41:12PM +, Rustad, Mark D wrote: > That said, I can see that you have tried to keep the original code path > pretty much intact. I would note that you introduced rcu calls into the !bpf > path that would never have been done before. While that should be ok, I > would

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP support

Rustad, Mark D : > Alexei Starovoitov wrote: [...] > > the point that it's only used virtualized, since PCI (not PCIE) have > > been long dead. > > My point is precisely the opposite. It is a real device, it exists in real > systems and it

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP support

Alexei Starovoitov wrote: On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 07:14:27PM +, Rustad, Mark D wrote: Alexei Starovoitov wrote: On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 06:28:03PM +, Rustad, Mark D wrote: Alexei Starovoitov

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP support

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 07:14:27PM +, Rustad, Mark D wrote: > Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > >On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 06:28:03PM +, Rustad, Mark D wrote: > >>Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > >> > >>>I've looked through qemu and it

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP support

Alexei Starovoitov wrote: On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 06:28:03PM +, Rustad, Mark D wrote: Alexei Starovoitov wrote: I've looked through qemu and it appears only emulate e1k and tg3. The latter is still used in the field, so the

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP support

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 06:28:03PM +, Rustad, Mark D wrote: > Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > >I've looked through qemu and it appears only emulate e1k and tg3. > >The latter is still used in the field, so the risk of touching > >it is higher. > > I have no idea

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP support

Alexei Starovoitov wrote: I've looked through qemu and it appears only emulate e1k and tg3. The latter is still used in the field, so the risk of touching it is higher. I have no idea what makes you think that e1k is *not* "used in the field". I grant you it

Re: [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP support

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:37:32AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 10:13 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > I'm afraid the point 'only for debugging' still didn't make it across. > > xdp+e1k is for development (and debugging) of xdp-type of bpf > > programs and _not_ for

Re: [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP support

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 09:21:47AM -0700, Tom Herbert wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Alexei Starovoitov >> wrote: >> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 05:03:25PM -0700,

Re: [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP support

On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 10:13 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > I'm afraid the point 'only for debugging' still didn't make it across. > xdp+e1k is for development (and debugging) of xdp-type of bpf > programs and _not_ for debugging of xdp itself, kernel or anything else. > The e1k provided

Re: [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP support

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 09:21:47AM -0700, Tom Herbert wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Alexei Starovoitov > wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 05:03:25PM -0700, Tom Herbert wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Eric Dumazet >

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP support

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 08:42:41PM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 3:13 PM, John Fastabend > wrote: > > From: Alexei Starovoitov > > > > This patch adds initial support for XDP on e1000 driver. Note e1000 > > driver does not support

Re: [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP support

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 05:03:25PM -0700, Tom Herbert wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> > On Mon, 2016-09-12 at 16:07 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP support

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 3:13 PM, John Fastabend wrote: > From: Alexei Starovoitov > > This patch adds initial support for XDP on e1000 driver. Note e1000 > driver does not support page recycling in general which could be > added as a further improvement.

Re: [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP support

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 05:03:25PM -0700, Tom Herbert wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-09-12 at 16:07 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > >> yep. there are various ways to shoot yourself in the foot with xdp. > >> The

Re: [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP support

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:46:08PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Mon, 2016-09-12 at 16:07 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > yep. there are various ways to shoot yourself in the foot with xdp. > > The simplest program that drops all the packets will make the box > > unpingable. > > Well,

Re: [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP support

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Mon, 2016-09-12 at 16:07 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > >> yep. there are various ways to shoot yourself in the foot with xdp. >> The simplest program that drops all the packets will make the box unpingable. > >

Re: [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP support

On Mon, 2016-09-12 at 16:07 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > yep. there are various ways to shoot yourself in the foot with xdp. > The simplest program that drops all the packets will make the box unpingable. Well, my comment was about XDP_TX only, not about XDP_DROP or driving a scooter on

Re: [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP support

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 03:46:39PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Mon, 2016-09-12 at 15:13 -0700, John Fastabend wrote: > > From: Alexei Starovoitov > > > +static void e1000_xmit_raw_frame(struct e1000_rx_buffer *rx_buffer_info, > > +u32 len, > > +

Re: [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP support

On Mon, 2016-09-12 at 15:13 -0700, John Fastabend wrote: > From: Alexei Starovoitov > +static void e1000_xmit_raw_frame(struct e1000_rx_buffer *rx_buffer_info, > + u32 len, > + struct net_device *netdev, > +

[net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP support

From: Alexei Starovoitov This patch adds initial support for XDP on e1000 driver. Note e1000 driver does not support page recycling in general which could be added as a further improvement. However XDP_DROP case will recycle. XDP_TX and XDP_PASS do not support recycling. e1000 only