Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 0/5] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw: add AF_XDP zero copy support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Jakub,

Sorry for the duplicate mail.

On 7/14/2025 8:36 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 14: 50: 05 +0530 Malladi, Meghana wrote: > > AF_XDP performance using 64 byte packets in Kpps. > > Benchmark: XDP-SKB XDP- Native XDP-Native(ZeroCopy) > > rxdrop 317 504 824 > > txonly 400 405 757 >
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This message was sent from outside of Texas Instruments.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this email and know the content is safe.
Report Suspicious
<https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/G3vK! uDdqXRfP1m37CoZlPNNDnQgOintsvKy- cENuCwB1b5Qxa66rT1SFJDmyny6jsjalW7Wur6ukCSGrdQ$>
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 14:50:05 +0530 Malladi, Meghana wrote:
> AF_XDP performance using 64 byte packets in Kpps.
> Benchmark:	XDP-SKB		XDP-Native	XDP-Native(ZeroCopy)
> rxdrop		317		504		824
> txonly		400		405		757
> l2fwd 		207		264		0
> > AF_XDP performance using 1500 byte packets in Kpps.
> Benchmark:	XDP-SKB		XDP-Native	XDP-Native(ZeroCopy)
> rxdrop		82		82		82
> txonly		82		82		82
> l2fwd 		82		82		82
> > [1]: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/xdp-project/bpf-examples/
tree/master/AF_XDP-example__;!!G3vK!Sv1p-bFPBDlzD-YMO2sjo- X2gv3CW5uHD_O771StRVzMR8Vr75k7tTGQJ27MRy_fz3d9m40aZg$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/xdp-project/bpf-examples/tree/master/AF_XDP-example__;!!G3vK!Sv1p-bFPBDlzD-YMO2sjo-X2gv3CW5uHD_O771StRVzMR8Vr75k7tTGQJ27MRy_fz3d9m40aZg$>
> > To: > > Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxxxxxx> This series crashes Linux on am64xx-hsevm, when I tried nfs boot using AM65-CPSW-NUSS driver: logs: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://gist.github.com/MeghanaMalladiTI/
d655a1c8ca88113ee7f5f57d6ab0ec4c__;!!G3vK!Sv1p-bFPBDlzD-YMO2sjo- X2gv3CW5uHD_O771StRVzMR8Vr75k7tTGQJ27MRy_fz3ecuWN_dw$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://gist.github.com/MeghanaMalladiTI/d655a1c8ca88113ee7f5f57d6ab0ec4c__;!!G3vK!Sv1p-bFPBDlzD-YMO2sjo-X2gv3CW5uHD_O771StRVzMR8Vr75k7tTGQJ27MRy_fz3ecuWN_dw$>

Seems like you have reverted the fix for the same bug which was reported by Siddharth and fixed by Julien: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/
all/7f7fb71a-6d15-46f1-b63c-b569a2e230b7@xxxxxxxxxxxx/__;!!G3vK!Sv1p- bFPBDlzD-YMO2sjo-X2gv3CW5uHD_O771StRVzMR8Vr75k7tTGQJ27MRy_fz3exh7VnCw$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/all/7f7fb71a-6d15-46f1-b63c-b569a2e230b7@xxxxxxxxxxxx/__;!!G3vK!Sv1p-bFPBDlzD-YMO2sjo-X2gv3CW5uHD_O771StRVzMR8Vr75k7tTGQJ27MRy_fz3exh7VnCw$>

reverted lines:
		if (!common->ports[port].ndev)
		/* FIXME should we BUG here? */
			continue;

Can you please take a look at it.

Just to be clear -- you're reporting this problem to Roger so that its
fixed before the series is reposted? I don't see this in the tree, I
wanted to make sure it's not something I need to track as a regression.


Yes you are right. This isn't a regression, I reported this as part of my testing for this RFC patch series.

--
Thanks,
Meghana Malladi





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux