On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 12:49:09AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 05/02/2018 01:01 PM, Björn Töpel wrote:
> > From: Björn Töpel <bjorn.to...@intel.com>
> >
> > This patch set introduces a new address family called AF_XDP that is
> > optimized for high performance packet processing and, in upcoming
> > patch sets, zero-copy semantics. In this patch set, we have removed
> > all zero-copy related code in order to make it smaller, simpler and
> > hopefully more review friendly. This patch set only supports copy-mode
> > for the generic XDP path (XDP_SKB) for both RX and TX and copy-mode
> > for RX using the XDP_DRV path. Zero-copy support requires XDP and
> > driver changes that Jesper Dangaard Brouer is working on. Some of his
> > work has already been accepted. We will publish our zero-copy support
> > for RX and TX on top of his patch sets at a later point in time.
>
> +1, would be great to see it land this cycle. Saw few minor nits here
> and there but nothing to hold it up, for the series:
>
> Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <dan...@iogearbox.net>
>
> Thanks everyone!
Great stuff!
Applied to bpf-next, with one condition.
Upcoming zero-copy patches for both RX and TX need to be posted
and reviewed within this release window.
If netdev community as a whole won't be able to agree on the zero-copy
bits we'd need to revert this feature before the next merge window.
Few other minor nits:
patch 3:
+struct xdp_ring {
+ __u32 producer __attribute__((aligned(64)));
+ __u32 consumer __attribute__((aligned(64)));
+};
It kinda begs for ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp to be introduced for uapi
headers.
patch 5:
+struct sockaddr_xdp {
+ __u16 sxdp_family;
+ __u32 sxdp_ifindex;
Not great to have a hole in uapi struct. Please fix it in the follow up.
patch 7:
Has a lot of synchronize_net(). I think udpate/delete side
can be improved to avoid them. Otherwise users may unknowingly DoS.
As the next steps I suggest to prioritize the highest to ship
zero-copy rx/tx patches and to add selftests.
Thanks!
