# Re: \[PATCH net-next v3\] xsk: add indirect call for xsk\_destruct\_skb

- From: Jason Xing \<hidden\>
- Date: 2025-11-11 12:16:19 
- List: netdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2025/11/7939717
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/bpf/2025/10/7939295/t.md

```text
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 5:30 PM Paolo Abeni [ref] wrote:
>
> On 10/31/25 11:33 AM, Jason Xing wrote:
> > From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
> >
> > Since Eric proposed an idea about adding indirect call wrappers for
> > UDP and managed to see a huge improvement[1], the same situation can
> > also be applied in xsk scenario.
> >
> > This patch adds an indirect call for xsk and helps current copy mode
> > improve the performance by around 1% stably which was observed with
> > IXGBE at 10Gb/sec loaded. If the throughput grows, the positive effect
> > will be magnified. I applied this patch on top of batch xmit series[2],
> > and was able to see <5% improvement from our internal application
> > which is a little bit unstable though.
> >
> > Use INDIRECT wrappers to keep xsk_destruct_skb static as it used to
> > be when the mitigation config is off.
> >
> > Be aware of the freeing path that can be very hot since the frequency
> > can reach around 2,000,000 times per second with the xdpsock test.
> >
> > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20251006193103.2684156-2-edumazet@google.com/
> > [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251021131209.41491-1-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com/
> >
> > Suggested-by: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
>
> My take here is that this should not impact too negatively the
> maintenance cost, and I agree that virtio_net is a legit/significant
> use-case.

Thanks for your understanding :) This case is one of my biggest
headaches because I have to use copy mode :(

Thanks,
Jason
```