Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] xdp: Infrastructure to generalize XDP

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Jakub Kicinski [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:39:40 -0700, Tom Herbert wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Jakub Kicinski [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 17:01:39 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:

quoted

 >  - Reduces the amount of code and complexity needed in drivers to
 >    manage XDP

hmm:
534 insertions(+), 144 deletions(-)
looks like increase in complexity instead.

and more to come to tie this with HW offloads.

The amount of driver code did decrease with these patches:

drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_netdev.c | 64 ++++----------------------
drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_rx.c     | 25 ++++------
drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/mlx4_en.h   |  1 -

Minimizing complexity being added to drivers for XDP is critical since
we basically asking every driver to replicate the function. This
property also should also apply to HW offloads, the more complexity we
can abstract out drivers into a common backend infrastructure the
better for supporting across different drivers.

I'm in the middle of writing/testing XDP support for the Netronome's
driver and generic infra is very much appreciated ;)  In my experience
the 50 lines of code which are required for assigning the programs and
freeing them aren't really a big deal, though.

50 lines in one driver is not a big deal, 50 lines in a hundred
drivers is! I learned this lesson in BQL which was well abstracted out
to be minimally invasive but we still saw many issues because of the
pecularities of different drivers.

Let's also separate putting xdp_prog in netdevice/napi_struct from the
generic hook infra.  All the simplifications to the driver AFAICS come
from the former.  If everyone is fine with growing napi_struct we can do
that but IMHO this is not an argument for the generic infra :)