Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 at 22:52, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Kal Cutter Conley <kal.conley@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> >> Well, you mentioned yourself that: >> >> >> >> > The disadvantage of this patchset is requiring the user to allocate >> >> > HugeTLB pages which is an extra complication. >> > >> > It's a small extra complication *for the user*. However, users that >> > need this feature are willing to allocate hugepages. We are one such >> > user. For us, having to deal with packets split into disjoint buffers >> > (from the XDP multi-buffer paradigm) is a significantly more annoying >> > complication than allocating hugepages (particularly on the RX side). >> >> "More annoying" is not a great argument, though. You're basically saying >> "please complicate your code so I don't have to complicate mine". And >> since kernel API is essentially frozen forever, adding more of them >> carries a pretty high cost, which is why kernel developers tend not to >> be easily swayed by convenience arguments (if all you want is a more >> convenient API, just build one on top of the kernel primitives and wrap >> it into a library). >> >> So you'll need to come up with either (1) a use case that you *can't* >> solve without this new API (with specifics as to why that is the case), >> or (2) a compelling performance benchmark showing the complexity is >> worth it. Magnus indicated he would be able to produce the latter, in >> which case I'm happy to be persuaded by the numbers. > > We will measure it and get back to you. Would be good with some > numbers. Sounds good, thanks! :) -Toke
