Re: [PATCH RFC v2 01/33] xdp: add frame size to xdp_buff

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 00:48:30 +0000 Saeed Mahameed wrote:

quoted

quoted

+ * This macro reserves tailroom in the XDP buffer by limiting the
+ * XDP/BPF data access to data_hard_end.  Notice same area (and
size)
+ * is used for XDP_PASS, when constructing the SKB via
build_skb().
+ */
+#define xdp_data_hard_end(xdp)				\
+	((xdp)->data_hard_start + (xdp)->frame_sz -	\
+	 SKB_DATA_ALIGN(sizeof(struct skb_shared_info)))  

I think it should be said somewhere that the drivers are expected to
DMA map memory up to xdp_data_hard_end(xdp).
  

but this works on a specific xdp buff, drivers work with mtu

and what if the driver want to have this as an option per packet .. 
i.e.: if there is enough tail room, then build_skb, otherwise
alloc new skb, copy headers, setup data frags.. etc

having such limitations on driver can be very strict, i think the
decision must remain dynamic per frame..

of-course drivers should optimize to preserve enough tail room for all
rx packets.. 

My concern is that driver may allocate a full page for each frame but
only DMA map the amount that can reasonably contain data given the MTU.
To save on DMA syncs.

Today that wouldn't be a problem, because XDP_REDIRECT will re-map the
page, and XDP_TX has the same MTU.

In this set xdp_data_hard_end is used both to find the end of memory
buffer, and end of DMA buffer. Implementation of bpf_xdp_adjust_tail()
assumes anything < SKB_DATA_ALIGN(sizeof(struct skb_shared_info)) from
the end is fair game.

So I was trying to say that we should warn driver authors that the DMA
buffer can now grow / move beyond what the driver may expect in XDP_TX.
Drivers can either DMA map enough memory, or handle the corner case in
a special way.

IDK if that makes sense, we may be talking past each other :)