On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 12:18 PM Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On 29/06/2021 20.37, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 11:18:38 -0700 Alexander Duyck wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 10:08 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > ack, I agree. I will fix it in v10. > > > > > Why is XDP mb incompatible with LRO? I thought that was one of the use > > > > > cases (mentioned by Willem IIRC). > > > > XDP is meant to be a per packet operation with support for TX and > > > > REDIRECT, and LRO isn't routable. So we could put together a large LRO > > > > frame but we wouldn't be able to break it apart again. If we allow > > > > that then we are going to need a ton more exception handling added to > > > > the XDP paths. > > > > > > > > As far as GSO it would require setting many more fields in order to > > > > actually make it offloadable by any hardware. > > > It would require more work, but TSO seems to be explicitly stated > > > as what the series builds towards (in the cover letter). It's fine > > > to make choices we'd need to redo later, I guess, I'm just trying > > > to understand the why. > > > > This is also my understanding that LRO and TSO is what this patchset is > > working towards. > > > > Sorry, I don't agree or understand this requested change. > > > > > > My understanding here is to use gso_size to store paged length of the > xdp multi-buffer. When converting the xdp_frame to a skb we will need > to overwrite it to support gro/lro. Is my understanding correct? Yes, I was thinking just of the xdp_buff, not the xdp_frame. My focus for right now is mostly around the Rx side of things, xdp_buff to skb, and around the XDP_TX path. If we want to drop/move where we keep the data length when doing the conversion I would be fine with that.
