On 10/9/24 17:30, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
On 10/08, David Wei wrote:
On 2024-10-08 08:58, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
On 10/07, David Wei wrote:
From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@xxxxxxxxx>
There are scenarios in which the zerocopy path might get a normal
in-kernel buffer, it could be a mis-steered packet or simply the linear
part of an skb. Another use case is to allow the driver to allocate
kernel pages when it's out of zc buffers, which makes it more resilient
to spikes in load and allow the user to choose the balance between the
amount of memory provided and performance.
Tangential: should there be some clear way for the users to discover that
(some counter of some entry on cq about copy fallback)?
Or the expectation is that somebody will run bpftrace to diagnose
(supposedly) poor ZC performance when it falls back to copy?
Yeah there definitely needs to be a way to notify the user that copy
fallback happened. Right now I'm relying on bpftrace hooking into
io_zcrx_copy_chunk(). Doing it per cqe (which is emitted per frag) is
too much. I can think of two other options:
1. Send a final cqe at the end of a number of frag cqes with a count of
the number of copies.
2. Register a secondary area just for handling copies.
Other suggestions are also very welcome.
SG, thanks. Up to you and Pavel on the mechanism and whether to follow
up separately. Maybe even move this fallback (this patch) into that separate
series as well? Will be easier to review/accept the rest.
I think it's fine to leave it? It shouldn't be particularly
interesting to the net folks to review, and without it any skb
with the linear part would break it, but perhaps it's not such
a concern for bnxt.
--
Pavel Begunkov
