On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 10:41:16AM +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote: > On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 04:17:59 -0500, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 11:33:31AM +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote: > > > On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 15:41:44 +0100, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2023-02-02 at 19:00 +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote: > > > > > XDP socket(AF_XDP) is an excellent bypass kernel network framework. The zero > > > > > copy feature of xsk (XDP socket) needs to be supported by the driver. The > > > > > performance of zero copy is very good. mlx5 and intel ixgbe already support > > > > > this feature, This patch set allows virtio-net to support xsk's zerocopy xmit > > > > > feature. > > > > > > > > > > Virtio-net did not support per-queue reset, so it was impossible to support XDP > > > > > Socket Zerocopy. At present, we have completed the work of Virtio Spec and > > > > > Kernel in Per-Queue Reset. It is time for Virtio-Net to complete the support for > > > > > the XDP Socket Zerocopy. > > > > > > > > > > Virtio-net can not increase the queue at will, so xsk shares the queue with > > > > > kernel. > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand, Virtio-Net does not support generate interrupt manually, so > > > > > when we wakeup tx xmit, we used some tips. If the CPU run by TX NAPI last time > > > > > is other CPUs, use IPI to wake up NAPI on the remote CPU. If it is also the > > > > > local CPU, then we wake up sofrirqd. > > > > > > > > Thank you for the large effort. > > > > > > > > Since this will likely need a few iterations, on next revision please > > > > do split the work in multiple chunks to help the reviewer efforts - > > > > from Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst: > > > > > > > > - don't post large series (> 15 patches), break them up > > > > > > > > In this case I guess you can split it in 1 (or even 2) pre-req series > > > > and another one for the actual xsk zero copy support. > > > > > > > > > OK. > > > > > > I can split patch into multiple parts such as > > > > > > * virtio core > > > * xsk > > > * virtio-net prepare > > > * virtio-net support xsk zerocopy > > > > > > However, there is a problem, the virtio core part should enter the VHOST branch > > > of Michael. Then, should I post follow-up patches to which branch vhost or > > > next-next? > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > Here are some ideas on how to make the patchset smaller > > and easier to merge: > > - keep everything in virtio_net.c for now. We can split > > things out later, but this way your patchset will not > > conflict with every since change merged meanwhile. > > Also, split up needs to be done carefully with sane > > APIs between components, let's maybe not waste time > > on that now, do the split-up later. > > - you have patches that add APIs then other > > patches use them. as long as it's only virtio net just > > add and use in a single patch, review is actually easier this way. > > I will try to merge #16-#18 and #20-#23. don't do the code reorg thing for now either. leave this for later. > > > - we can try merging pre-requisites earlier, then patchset > > size will shrink. > > Do you mean the patches of virtio core? Should we put these > patches to vhost branch? > > Thanks. I can merge patches 1-8, yes. This patchset probably missed the merge window anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > Paolo > > > > > >
