From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82813C433E6 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 22:50:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34C8364DED for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 22:50:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232841AbhA2WuP (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jan 2021 17:50:15 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35422 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231195AbhA2WuM (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jan 2021 17:50:12 -0500 Received: from mail-wr1-x434.google.com (mail-wr1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::434]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 005E8C061573; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 14:49:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr1-x434.google.com with SMTP id p15so10343710wrq.8; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 14:49:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TxZTwmVBAszHY/FHghqTuPm0fq1rfUoUoo9mfv7kFa0=; b=JS4l6+XUjBn7f++gbnmdJeDvQOOESkXDRBrSIb8uKYVNRjNepBbmQ3AC6KpzgahepK BUa+/ZoUqbdkZbV/ETIpMmbemzBEVZrzOKQ30+psTmbsg5xDdFDPrnQqCpNcz/G77U48 tN9Qde/4CCJOkstQ4ueLnJXreR8cMm6XRxteNoQ8deFPR8m9zBVYgumNIPxpGmgn7EVf r55WFNFJm9CuLeT9A1W9bbMcyh3xzbQPTUXdLs0R220q7xXhXppLkEOCPWAvw3QWwIqE XYQdj76WuIVtiopFlZKSsOEDJG4th1weMoStNxsOlDdbM62NjoMBaqqkNPLsG0Lny8ER sxGg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TxZTwmVBAszHY/FHghqTuPm0fq1rfUoUoo9mfv7kFa0=; b=J6I22yGBwSBl6nwKWNfnBh1vgUPek5Y5LMwWTTVR/Qbfj+Cu0EsCH+vg8KH1wBDfUC ERhoHZRBkLIEoaa75oS1Y71/7x8mo2kiTK2zKiVZYv4xCsPhQ0mgpWQa6/lDqWI0iRjk 06gOiB7ui72jQc8GDMti2f645+ehnssvfEo4nXb6hzH2ySD4g950AAdE/XxejAELoTaP uy5TTAfTs7ZLWXU2u1tQtcbTy2c93bqiHZtnNB2d2Gsreu7m8UHbV3tP7SNSLkRrmFmd svo4R/Dn1I+MgVJDt61v7LxU5hx+3mySL2v9TV27OMzHWm+oyVGHsIkjLWz8oM0hrnne 4lUQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5303Y4pnHVllgf4IAeIbzCJThC0p24hp3AJF6F+4YwDhpy1P/C4Y Su2Ut54UImPMY3cS7d5InTy4IcJu07e1KEoyZbQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz9Qzpzrwu8SMXaGnnVpDAw/l3dN43ky2YraD6u+hkinfYQyZ5G9UGX8XqQp2i3pHN9yfz8o0cmpefAPjDw83w= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:65ca:: with SMTP id e10mr6983337wrw.166.1611960570571; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 14:49:30 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210129195240.31871-1-TheSven73@gmail.com> <20210129195240.31871-2-TheSven73@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Sven Van Asbroeck Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 17:49:19 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/6] lan743x: boost performance on cpu archs w/o dma cache snooping To: Andrew Lunn Cc: Bryan Whitehead , Microchip Linux Driver Support , David S Miller , Jakub Kicinski , Alexey Denisov , Sergej Bauer , Tim Harvey , =?UTF-8?Q?Anders_R=C3=B8nningen?= , netdev , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Andrew, thank you so much for looking at this patch ! On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 3:36 PM Andrew Lunn wrote: > > So this patch appears to contain two different changes > 1) You only allocate a receive buffer as big as the MTU plus overheads > 2) You change the cache operations to operate on the received length. > > The first change should be completely safe, and i guess, is giving > most of the benefits. The second one is where interesting things might > happen. So please split this patch into two. If it does break, we can > git bisect, and probably end up on the second patch. > Yes, I tested this extensively on arm7, but you're right, it might behave differently on other platforms. I will split into two, as you suggested.