On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 15:55:23 +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 15:49:32 -0700 > Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 18:32:58 +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 13:59:03 +0200 Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > As you probably can derive from the amount of time this is taking, I'm > > > > not really satisfied with the design of per-queue XDP program. (That, > > > > plus I'm a terribly slow hacker... ;-)) I'll try to expand my thinking > > > > in this mail! > > > > Jesper was advocating per-queue progs since very early days of XDP. > > If it was easy to implement cleanly we would've already gotten it ;) > > (I cannot help to feel offended here... IMHO that statement is BS, > that is not how upstream development work, and sure, I am to blame as > I've simply been to lazy or busy with other stuff to implement it. Sincere apologies, definitely not what I was trying to say. > It is not that hard to send down a queue# together with the XDP attach > command.) That part is not hard, agreed. > I've been advocating for per-queue progs from day-1, since this is an > obvious performance advantage, given the programmer can specialize the > BPF/XDP-prog to the filtered traffic. I hope/assume we are on the same > pages here, that per-queue progs is a performance optimization. > > I guess the rest of the discussion in this thread is (1) if we can > convince each-other that someone will actually use this optimization, > and (2) if we can abstract this away from the user. Yes, agreed.
