On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 22:01:17 +0200 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Hmm, the assumption that XDP frames take up at most one page has been > >> fundamental from the start of XDP. So what does linearise mean in this > >> context? If we get a 9k packet, should we dynamically allocate a > >> multi-page chunk of contiguous memory and copy the frame into that, or > >> were you thinking something else? > > > > My $.02 would be to not care about redirect at all. > > > > It's not like the user experience with redirect is anywhere close > > to amazing right now. Besides (with the exception of SW devices which > > will likely gain mb support quickly) mixed-HW setups are very rare. > > If the source of the redirect supports mb so will likely the target. > > It's not about device support it's about XDP program support: If I run > an MB-aware XDP program on a physical interface and redirect the (MB) > frame into a container, and there's an XDP program running inside that > container that isn't MB-aware, bugs will ensue. Doesn't matter if the > veth driver itself supports MB... Ah, I see now. > We could leave that as a "don't do that, then" kind of thing, but that > was what we were proposing (as the "do nothing" option) and got some > pushback on, hence why we're having this conversation :) Let me make a general statement that we can't build large systems without division of responsibilities. Device specific logic has to be left to the driver. It's up to veth to apply its extra rules. As Zvi said, tho, this can be left for later. IMHO initial patches can drop all mb frames on redirect in the core, so we can make progress.
