From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
To: "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@intel.com>
Cc: bjorn.topel@gmail.com, alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com,
bjorn.topel@intel.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com,
magnus.karlsson@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
toke@redhat.com, tom.herbert@intel.com,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] FW: [PATCH bpf-next 2/4] xsk: allow AF_XDP sockets to receive packets directly from a queue
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 17:21:48 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191031172148.0290b11f@cakuba.netronome.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2e27b8d9-4615-cd8d-93de-2adb75d8effa@intel.com>
On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 15:38:42 -0700, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
> Do you think it will be possible to avoid this overhead when mitigations are turned ON?
> The other part of the overhead is going through the redirect path.
Yes, you should help Maciej with the XDP bulking.
> Can i assume that your silence as an indication that you are now okay with optional bypass
> flag as long as it doesn't effect the normal XDP datapath. If so, i will respin and submit
> the patches against the latest bpf-next
This logic baffles me. I absolutely hate when people repost patches
after I nack them without even as much as mentioning my objections in
the cover letter.
My concern was that we want the applications to encode fast path logic
in BPF and load that into the kernel. So your patch works fundamentally
against that goal:
I worry that with the volume of patches that get posted each day
objections of a measly contributor like myself will get forgotten
if I don't reply to each posting, yet replying each time makes me look
bullish or whatnot (apart from being an utter waste of time).
Ugh.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] FW: [PATCH bpf-next 2/4] xsk: allow AF_XDP sockets to receive packets directly from a queue
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 17:21:48 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191031172148.0290b11f@cakuba.netronome.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2e27b8d9-4615-cd8d-93de-2adb75d8effa@intel.com>
On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 15:38:42 -0700, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
> Do you think it will be possible to avoid this overhead when mitigations are turned ON?
> The other part of the overhead is going through the redirect path.
Yes, you should help Maciej with the XDP bulking.
> Can i assume that your silence as an indication that you are now okay with optional bypass
> flag as long as it doesn't effect the normal XDP datapath. If so, i will respin and submit
> the patches against the latest bpf-next
This logic baffles me. I absolutely hate when people repost patches
after I nack them without even as much as mentioning my objections in
the cover letter.
My concern was that we want the applications to encode fast path logic
in BPF and load that into the kernel. So your patch works fundamentally
against that goal:
I worry that with the volume of patches that get posted each day
objections of a measly contributor like myself will get forgotten
if I don't reply to each posting, yet replying each time makes me look
bullish or whatnot (apart from being an utter waste of time).
Ugh.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-01 0:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 84+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-08 6:16 [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] Enable direct receive on AF_XDP sockets Sridhar Samudrala
2019-10-08 6:16 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Sridhar Samudrala
2019-10-08 6:16 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] bpf: introduce bpf_get_prog_id and bpf_set_prog_id helper functions Sridhar Samudrala
2019-10-08 6:16 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Sridhar Samudrala
2019-10-08 6:16 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/4] xsk: allow AF_XDP sockets to receive packets directly from a queue Sridhar Samudrala
2019-10-08 6:16 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Sridhar Samudrala
2019-10-08 6:58 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-08 6:58 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Toke =?unknown-8bit?q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?=
2019-10-08 8:47 ` Björn Töpel
2019-10-08 8:47 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " =?unknown-8bit?q?Bj=C3=B6rn_T=C3=B6pel?=
2019-10-08 8:48 ` Björn Töpel
2019-10-08 8:48 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " =?unknown-8bit?q?Bj=C3=B6rn_T=C3=B6pel?=
2019-10-08 9:04 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-08 9:04 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Toke =?unknown-8bit?q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?=
2019-10-08 8:05 ` Björn Töpel
2019-10-08 8:05 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " =?unknown-8bit?q?Bj=C3=B6rn_T=C3=B6pel?=
2019-10-09 16:32 ` Samudrala, Sridhar
2019-10-09 16:32 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Samudrala, Sridhar
2019-10-09 1:20 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-10-09 1:20 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Alexei Starovoitov
[not found] ` <3ED8E928C4210A4289A677D2FEB48235140134CE@fmsmsx111.amr.corp.intel.com>
2019-10-09 16:53 ` FW: " Samudrala, Sridhar
2019-10-09 16:53 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Samudrala, Sridhar
2019-10-09 17:17 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-10-09 17:17 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Alexei Starovoitov
2019-10-09 19:12 ` Samudrala, Sridhar
2019-10-09 19:12 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Samudrala, Sridhar
2019-10-10 1:06 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-10-10 1:06 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Alexei Starovoitov
2019-10-18 18:40 ` Samudrala, Sridhar
2019-10-18 18:40 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Samudrala, Sridhar
2019-10-18 19:22 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-18 19:22 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Toke =?unknown-8bit?q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?=
2019-10-19 0:14 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-10-19 0:14 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Alexei Starovoitov
2019-10-19 0:45 ` Samudrala, Sridhar
2019-10-19 0:45 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Samudrala, Sridhar
2019-10-19 2:25 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-10-19 2:25 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Alexei Starovoitov
2019-10-20 10:14 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-20 10:14 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Toke =?unknown-8bit?q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?=
2019-10-20 17:12 ` Björn Töpel
2019-10-20 17:12 ` =?unknown-8bit?q?Bj=C3=B6rn_T=C3=B6pel?=
2019-10-21 20:10 ` Samudrala, Sridhar
2019-10-21 20:10 ` Samudrala, Sridhar
2019-10-21 22:34 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-10-21 22:34 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-10-22 19:06 ` Samudrala, Sridhar
2019-10-22 19:06 ` Samudrala, Sridhar
2019-10-23 17:42 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-10-23 17:42 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-10-24 18:12 ` Samudrala, Sridhar
2019-10-24 18:12 ` Samudrala, Sridhar
2019-10-25 7:42 ` Björn Töpel
2019-10-25 7:42 ` =?unknown-8bit?q?Bj=C3=B6rn_T=C3=B6pel?=
2019-10-31 22:38 ` Samudrala, Sridhar
2019-10-31 22:38 ` Samudrala, Sridhar
2019-10-31 23:15 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-10-31 23:15 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-11-01 0:21 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2019-11-01 0:21 ` Jakub Kicinski
2019-11-01 18:31 ` Samudrala, Sridhar
2019-11-01 18:31 ` Samudrala, Sridhar
2019-11-04 2:08 ` dan
2019-11-04 2:08 ` dan
2019-10-25 9:07 ` Björn Töpel
2019-10-25 9:07 ` =?unknown-8bit?q?Bj=C3=B6rn_T=C3=B6pel?=
2019-10-08 6:16 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/4] libbpf: handle AF_XDP sockets created with XDP_DIRECT bind flag Sridhar Samudrala
2019-10-08 6:16 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Sridhar Samudrala
2019-10-08 8:05 ` Björn Töpel
2019-10-08 8:05 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " =?unknown-8bit?q?Bj=C3=B6rn_T=C3=B6pel?=
2019-10-08 6:16 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] xdpsock: add an option to create AF_XDP sockets in XDP_DIRECT mode Sridhar Samudrala
2019-10-08 6:16 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Sridhar Samudrala
2019-10-08 8:05 ` Björn Töpel
2019-10-08 8:05 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " =?unknown-8bit?q?Bj=C3=B6rn_T=C3=B6pel?=
2019-10-08 8:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] Enable direct receive on AF_XDP sockets Björn Töpel
2019-10-08 8:05 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " =?unknown-8bit?q?Bj=C3=B6rn_T=C3=B6pel?=
2019-10-09 16:19 ` Samudrala, Sridhar
2019-10-09 16:19 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Samudrala, Sridhar
2019-10-09 0:49 ` Jakub Kicinski
2019-10-09 0:49 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jakub Kicinski
2019-10-09 6:29 ` Samudrala, Sridhar
2019-10-09 6:29 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Samudrala, Sridhar
2019-10-09 16:53 ` Jakub Kicinski
2019-10-09 16:53 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jakub Kicinski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191031172148.0290b11f@cakuba.netronome.com \
--to=jakub.kicinski@netronome.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=bjorn.topel@gmail.com \
--cc=bjorn.topel@intel.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org \
--cc=maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com \
--cc=magnus.karlsson@intel.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sridhar.samudrala@intel.com \
--cc=toke@redhat.com \
--cc=tom.herbert@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.