On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 10:00 PM Stanislav Fomichev <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 01/26, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 10:45:22 -0800 Bobby Eshleman wrote: > > > I'm onboard with improving what we have since it helps all of us > > > currently using this API, though I'm not opposed to discussing a > > > redesign in another thread/RFC. I do see the attraction to locating the > > > core logic in one place and possibly reducing some complexity around > > > socket/binding relationships. > > > > > > FWIW regarding nl, I do see it supports rtnl lock-free operations via > > > '62256f98f244 rtnetlink: add RTNL_FLAG_DOIT_UNLOCKED' and routing was > > > recently made lockless with that. I don't see / know of any fast path > > > precedent. I'm aware there are some things I'm not sure about being > > > relevant performance-wise, like hitting skb alloc an additional time > > > every release batch. I'd want to do some minimal latency comparisons > > > between that path and sockopt before diving head-first. > > > > FTR I'm not really pushing Netlink specifically, it may work it > > may not. Perhaps some other ioctl-y thing exists. Just in general > > setsockopt() on a specific socket feels increasingly awkward for > > buffer flow. Maybe y'all disagree. > > > > I thought I'd clarify since I may be seen as "Mr Netlink Everywhere" :) > > From my side, if we do a completely new uapi, my preference would be on > an af_xdp like mapped rings (presumably on a netlink socket?) to completely > avoid the user-kernel copies.
I second liking that approach. No put_cmsg() and or token alloc overhead (both jump up in my profiling).
