On 2025-08-12 20:19:30, Dragos Tatulea wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 11:55:39AM -0700, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> > On 8/12/25 8:44 AM, 'Dragos Tatulea' via kernel-team wrote:
> >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/devmap.c b/kernel/bpf/devmap.c
> > > index 482d284a1553..484216c7454d 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/bpf/devmap.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/devmap.c
> > > @@ -408,8 +408,10 @@ static void bq_xmit_all(struct xdp_dev_bulk_queue *bq, u32 flags)
> > > /* If not all frames have been transmitted, it is our
> > > * responsibility to free them
> > > */
> > > + xdp_set_return_frame_no_direct();
> > > for (i = sent; unlikely(i < to_send); i++)
> > > xdp_return_frame_rx_napi(bq->q[i]);
> > > + xdp_clear_return_frame_no_direct();
> >
> > Why can't this instead just be xdp_return_frame(bq->q[i]); with no
> > "no_direct" fussing?
> >
> > Wouldn't this be the safest way for this function to call frame completion?
> > It seems like presuming the calling context is napi is wrong?
> >
> It would be better indeed. Thanks for removing my horse glasses!
>
> Once Chris verifies that this works for him I can prepare a fix patch.
>
Working on that now, I'm testing a kernel with the following change:
---
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/devmap.c b/kernel/bpf/devmap.c
index 3aa002a47..ef86d9e06 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/devmap.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/devmap.c
@@ -409,7 +409,7 @@ static void bq_xmit_all(struct xdp_dev_bulk_queue *bq, u32 flags)
* responsibility to free them
*/
for (i = sent; unlikely(i < to_send); i++)
- xdp_return_frame_rx_napi(bq->q[i]);
+ xdp_return_frame(bq->q[i]);
out:
bq->count = 0;
