Lorenz Bauer wrote: > On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 19:20, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Cong Wang wrote: > > > From: Cong Wang <cong.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Currently TCP_SKB_CB() is hard-coded in skmsg code, it certainly > > > does not work for any other non-TCP protocols. We can move them to > > > skb ext instead of playing with skb cb, which is harder to make > > > correct. > > > > > > Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Reviewed-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <cong.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > I'm not seeing the advantage of doing this at the moment. We can > > continue to use cb[] here, which is simpler IMO and use the ext > > if needed for the other use cases. This is adding a per packet > > alloc cost that we don't have at the moment as I understand it. > > John, do you have a benchmark we can look at? Right now we're arguing > in the abstract. Sure, but looks like Cong found some spare fields in sk_buff so that looks much nicer. I'll mess aound a bit with our benchmarks and see where we can publish them. It would be good to have some repeatable tests here folks can use. Thanks, John
