On 2025/01/20 20:19, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 1:37 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 6:35 PM Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2025/01/17 18:23, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
Akihiko Odaki wrote:
tun and tap implements the same vnet-related features so reuse the code.
Signed-off-by: Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/net/Kconfig | 1 +
drivers/net/Makefile | 6 +-
drivers/net/tap.c | 152 +++++--------------------------------------------
drivers/net/tun_vnet.c | 5 ++
4 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 140 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/Kconfig b/drivers/net/Kconfig
index 1fd5acdc73c6..c420418473fc 100644
--- a/drivers/net/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/net/Kconfig
@@ -395,6 +395,7 @@ config TUN
tristate "Universal TUN/TAP device driver support"
depends on INET
select CRC32
+ select TAP
help
TUN/TAP provides packet reception and transmission for user space
programs. It can be viewed as a simple Point-to-Point or Ethernet
diff --git a/drivers/net/Makefile b/drivers/net/Makefile
index bb8eb3053772..2275309a97ee 100644
--- a/drivers/net/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/net/Makefile
@@ -29,9 +29,9 @@ obj-y += mdio/
obj-y += pcs/
obj-$(CONFIG_RIONET) += rionet.o
obj-$(CONFIG_NET_TEAM) += team/
-obj-$(CONFIG_TUN) += tun-drv.o
-tun-drv-y := tun.o tun_vnet.o
-obj-$(CONFIG_TAP) += tap.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_TUN) += tun.o
Is reversing the previous changes to tun.ko intentional?
Perhaps the previous approach with a new CONFIG_TUN_VNET is preferable
over this. In particular over making TUN select TAP, a new dependency.
Jason, you also commented about CONFIG_TUN_VNET for the previous
version. Do you prefer the old approach, or the new one? (Or if you have
another idea, please tell me.)
Ideally, if we can make TUN select TAP that would be better. But there
are some subtle differences in the multi queue implementation. We will
end up with some useless code for TUN unless we can unify the multi
queue logic. It might not be worth it to change the TUN's multi queue
logic so having a new file seems to be better.
+1 on deduplicating further. But this series is complex enough. Let's not
expand that.
The latest approach with a separate .o file may have some performance
cost by converting likely inlined code into real function calls.
Another option is to move it all into tun_vnet.h. That also resolves
the Makefile issues.
I measured the size difference between the latest inlining approaches.
The numbers may vary depending on the system configuration of course,
but they should be useful for reference.
The below shows sizes when having a separate module: 106496 bytes in total
# lsmod
Module Size Used by
tap 28672 0
tun 61440 0
tun_vnet 16384 2 tun,tap
The below shows sizes when inlining: 102400 bytes in total
# lsmod
Module Size Used by
tap 32768 0
tun 69632 0
So having a separate module costs 4096 bytes more.
These two approaches should have similar tendency for run-time and
compile-time performance; the code is so trivial that the overhead of
having one additional module is dominant.
The only downside of having all in tun_vnet.h is that it will expose its
internal macros and functions, which I think tolerable.
