On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 11:53:22 -0800 Mina Almasry wrote:
> My bad on not including some docs about this. The next version should
> have the commit message beefed up to explain all this, or a docs
> patch.
Yes, please. Would be great to have the user facing interface well
explained under Documentation
On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 14:23:20 -0800 Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> Can we mark a socket as devmem-only? Do we have any use-case for those
> hybrid setups? Or, let me put it that way: do we expect API callers
> to handle both linear and non-linear cases correctly?
> As a consumer of the previous versions
From: Mina Almasry
> Sent: 06 November 2023 02:44
>
> For device memory TCP, we expect the skb headers to be available in host
> memory for access, and we expect the skb frags to be in device memory
> and unaccessible to the host. We expect there to be no mixing and
> matching of device memory fra
On 11/07, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 10:05 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't understand. We require an elaborate setup to receive devmem cmsgs,
> > why would some random application receive those?
>
>
> A TCP socket can receive 'valid TCP packets' from many differ
On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 10:05 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>
> I don't understand. We require an elaborate setup to receive devmem cmsgs,
> why would some random application receive those?
A TCP socket can receive 'valid TCP packets' from many different sources,
especially with BPF hooks...
Thi
On 11/07, Mina Almasry wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 5:06 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> [..]
> > > > > And the socket has to know this association; otherwise those tokens
> > > > > are useless since they don't carry anything to identify the dmabuf.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think my other issue wit
On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 5:06 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
[..]
> > > > And the socket has to know this association; otherwise those tokens
> > > > are useless since they don't carry anything to identify the dmabuf.
> > > >
> > > > I think my other issue with MSG_SOCK_DEVMEM being on recvmsg is that
On 11/07, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 12:44 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> >
> > On 11/06, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > > > > > > I think my other issue with MSG_SOCK_DEVMEM being on recvmsg is
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > it somehow implies that I have an option of passin
On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 12:44 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>
> On 11/06, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > > > > > I think my other issue with MSG_SOCK_DEVMEM being on recvmsg is that
> > > > > > it somehow implies that I have an option of passing or not passing
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > for an individ
On 11/06, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > > > > I think my other issue with MSG_SOCK_DEVMEM being on recvmsg is that
> > > > > it somehow implies that I have an option of passing or not passing it
> > > > > for an individual system call.
> > > > > If we know that we're going to use dmabuf with the sock
> > > > I think my other issue with MSG_SOCK_DEVMEM being on recvmsg is that
> > > > it somehow implies that I have an option of passing or not passing it
> > > > for an individual system call.
> > > > If we know that we're going to use dmabuf with the socket, maybe we
> > > > should move this flag
On 11/6/23 5:20 PM, Mina Almasry wrote:
> The user is free to modify or delete flow steering rules outside of the
> lifetime of the socket. Technically it's possible for the user to
> reconfigure flow steering while the socket is simultaneously receiving,
> and the result will be packets switching
On 11/06, Mina Almasry wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 4:08 PM Willem de Bruijn
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 3:55 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 3:27 PM Mina Almasry
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 2:59 PM Stanislav Fomichev
> >
On 11/06, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On 11/06, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 3:55 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 3:27 PM Mina Almasry
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 2:59 PM Stanislav Fomichev
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
>
On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 4:16 PM David Ahern wrote:
>
> On 11/5/23 7:44 PM, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > diff --git a/net/core/datagram.c b/net/core/datagram.c
> > index 176eb5834746..cdd4fb129968 100644
> > --- a/net/core/datagram.c
> > +++ b/net/core/datagram.c
> > @@ -425,6 +425,9 @@ static int __skb_
On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 4:08 PM Willem de Bruijn
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 3:55 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 3:27 PM Mina Almasry wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 2:59 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 11/06, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > >
On 11/5/23 7:44 PM, Mina Almasry wrote:
> diff --git a/net/core/datagram.c b/net/core/datagram.c
> index 176eb5834746..cdd4fb129968 100644
> --- a/net/core/datagram.c
> +++ b/net/core/datagram.c
> @@ -425,6 +425,9 @@ static int __skb_datagram_iter(const struct sk_buff *skb,
> int offset,
>
On 11/06, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 3:55 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 3:27 PM Mina Almasry wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 2:59 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 11/06, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023
On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 3:55 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 3:27 PM Mina Almasry wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 2:59 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > >
> > > On 11/06, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 1:59 PM Stanislav Fomichev
> > > > wrote:
>
On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 3:37 PM David Ahern wrote:
>
> On 11/6/23 3:18 PM, Mina Almasry wrote:
> >> @@ -991,7 +993,7 @@ struct sk_buff {
> >> #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IP_SCTP)
> >> __u8csum_not_inet:1;
> >> #endif
> >> -
> >> +__u8
On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 3:27 PM Mina Almasry wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 2:59 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> >
> > On 11/06, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 1:59 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 11/06, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 11:3
On 11/6/23 3:18 PM, Mina Almasry wrote:
>> @@ -991,7 +993,7 @@ struct sk_buff {
>> #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IP_SCTP)
>> __u8csum_not_inet:1;
>> #endif
>> -
>> +__u8devmem:1;
>> #if defined(CONFIG_NET_SCHED) || defined(CONF
On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 2:59 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>
> On 11/06, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 1:59 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > >
> > > On 11/06, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 11:34 AM David Ahern wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 11/6/23 11:47 AM, St
>
> But there is still always 1 dmabuf to 1 socket association (on rx), right?
>
In practice yes, but my understanding is that such association is only
enforced by NIC features such as flow steering.
So why not have a separate control channel action to say: this socket fd
> is supposed to receive
On 11/06, Mina Almasry wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 1:59 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> >
> > On 11/06, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 11:34 AM David Ahern wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 11/6/23 11:47 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > > > On 11/05, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > > > >>
On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 1:59 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>
> On 11/06, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 11:34 AM David Ahern wrote:
> > >
> > > On 11/6/23 11:47 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > > On 11/05, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > > >> For device memory TCP, we expect the skb head
On 11/06, Mina Almasry wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 11:34 AM David Ahern wrote:
> >
> > On 11/6/23 11:47 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > On 11/05, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > >> For device memory TCP, we expect the skb headers to be available in host
> > >> memory for access, and we expect the
On 11/05, Mina Almasry wrote:
> For device memory TCP, we expect the skb headers to be available in host
> memory for access, and we expect the skb frags to be in device memory
> and unaccessible to the host. We expect there to be no mixing and
> matching of device memory frags (unaccessible) with
On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 11:34 AM David Ahern wrote:
>
> On 11/6/23 11:47 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > On 11/05, Mina Almasry wrote:
> >> For device memory TCP, we expect the skb headers to be available in host
> >> memory for access, and we expect the skb frags to be in device memory
> >> and
On 11/6/23 11:47 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On 11/05, Mina Almasry wrote:
>> For device memory TCP, we expect the skb headers to be available in host
>> memory for access, and we expect the skb frags to be in device memory
>> and unaccessible to the host. We expect there to be no mixing and
>>
On 11/05, Mina Almasry wrote:
> For device memory TCP, we expect the skb headers to be available in host
> memory for access, and we expect the skb frags to be in device memory
> and unaccessible to the host. We expect there to be no mixing and
> matching of device memory frags (unaccessible) with
31 matches
Mail list logo
