On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 09:28:22 +0200
Tom Barbette wrote:
> Thanks Jesper for looking into this!
>
> I don't think I will be of much help further on this matter. My take
> out would be: as a first-time user looking into XDP after watching a
> dozen of XDP talks, I would have expected XDP default set
On Fri, 31 May 2019 18:06:01 + Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-05-31 at 18:18 +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
[...]
> >
> > To understand why this is happening, you first have to know that the
> > difference is between the two RX-memory modes used by mlx5 for non-
> > XDP vs XDP.
On Fri, 2019-05-31 at 18:18 +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2019 08:51:43 +0200 Tom Barbette
> wrote:
>
> > CCing mlx5 maintainers and commiters of bce2b2b. TLDK: there is a
> > huge
> > CPU increase on CX5 when introducing a XDP program.
> >
> > See https://www.youtube.co
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 18:18:17 +0200
> On Fri, 31 May 2019 08:51:43 +0200 Tom Barbette wrote:
>
>> I wonder if it doesn't simply come from mlx5/en_main.c:
>> rq->buff.map_dir = rq->xdp_prog ? DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL : DMA_FROM_DEVICE;
>>
>
> Nope, that is not the probl
On Fri, 31 May 2019 08:51:43 +0200 Tom Barbette wrote:
> CCing mlx5 maintainers and commiters of bce2b2b. TLDK: there is a huge
> CPU increase on CX5 when introducing a XDP program.
>
> See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5hlJZbN4Tk&feature=youtu.be
> around 0:40. We're talking something like
