From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lelvem-ot02.ext.ti.com (lelvem-ot02.ext.ti.com [198.47.23.235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DC333074AF; Fri, 24 Oct 2025 08:44:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.47.23.235 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761295488; cv=none; b=KRPEM8hYcWXQbr4sZ152Ox4u8VabUOnSVlHmZKHeDS9YJSn49RY+Xr9k5QNv1otsm/0amBT/b1aV/ajhSo+zfONFLMAtL46fGP+vFAlco29efEkFT76W6WlnDtrZMBlxbG5L05p8tc9D/hSPAYqzuZiWUvqPnEbgXboKZK8k0wE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761295488; c=relaxed/simple; bh=RUBNPB3AtMD0d3mNB+/CT5Me4yU+FU3u7SnGmbBeVas=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=peVoLt2OAU8wpE0NcbM26rRY5jTUKfLcx0sYX6ugTyfsSD9GiY1EER9lsxbVy1oa5RHQnQ7SDsOmBZ56wFIu90OepZ1KwJFZQLQKu7wk9A2ABdW/dYYkvCkuXiPWgLDVionwLcOQAHuygntKAzR4PA/f4UARFvZWS5sk4a6N9dc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ti.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b=PIAWQ+3k; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.47.23.235 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ti.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="PIAWQ+3k" Received: from fllvem-sh04.itg.ti.com ([10.64.41.54]) by lelvem-ot02.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 59O8hquH723152; Fri, 24 Oct 2025 03:43:52 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1761295432; bh=ZvFR30qFwvZDHVGLed7EJCdp64TbpYruso0PUk2iDPA=; h=Date:Subject:To:CC:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=PIAWQ+3ks1HLabNDuXtiE78yWF1Uy6I+QQ2OkdKTByw0Uee5iZvpFkK5lpy/M/Srk sfQiJnsMDw0SokScbRv4/s79+iin2u0XXE3AYVHEMwHjQn1aIbysLrxcOh/9OT+7UR eJKocEi9lwikTjSAbuD3jH+NKsbwJPuRqrYR5Hi0= Received: from DFLE201.ent.ti.com (dfle201.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.59]) by fllvem-sh04.itg.ti.com (8.18.1/8.18.1) with ESMTPS id 59O8hq7m3046177 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 24 Oct 2025 03:43:52 -0500 Received: from DFLE213.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.71) by DFLE201.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.2562.20; Fri, 24 Oct 2025 03:43:51 -0500 Received: from lelvem-mr06.itg.ti.com (10.180.75.8) by DFLE213.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.2562.20 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 24 Oct 2025 03:43:51 -0500 Received: from [172.24.18.185] (lt9560gk3.dhcp.ti.com [172.24.18.185]) by lelvem-mr06.itg.ti.com (8.18.1/8.18.1) with ESMTP id 59O8hipM077707; Fri, 24 Oct 2025 03:43:45 -0500 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 14:13:43 +0530 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 0/6] Add AF_XDP zero copy support To: Jacob Keller , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , CC: , , , , , , , , Vignesh Raghavendra , Roger Quadros , References: <20251023093927.1878411-1-m-malladi@ti.com> Content-Language: en-US From: "Malladi, Meghana" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-C2ProcessedOrg: 333ef613-75bf-4e12-a4b1-8e3623f5dcea Hi Jacob, On 10/24/2025 6:26 AM, Jacob Keller wrote: > > > On 10/23/2025 2:39 AM, Meghana Malladi wrote: >> This series adds AF_XDP zero coppy support to icssg driver. >> >> Tests were performed on AM64x-EVM with xdpsock application [1]. >> >> A clear improvement is seen Transmit (txonly) and receive (rxdrop) >> for 64 byte packets. 1500 byte test seems to be limited by line >> rate (1G link) so no improvement seen there in packet rate >> >> Having some issue with l2fwd as the benchmarking numbers show 0 >> for 64 byte packets after forwading first batch packets and I am >> currently looking into it. >> > > Do you think this means there is an issue with the patches or your test > setup? > > I didn't see anything stand out as a problem to me when reading the series: > > Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller > The setup is quite simple. I send broadcast traffic to the dut on which I run l2fwd (with xdpsock) and expect the stats to increase. But after 4096 packets, the stats stop incrementing. And I see this issue only with 64 byte packet and not with 1500 byte packets. I am suspecting could be some race condition or some bug in our dma controller. I am tracking this issue and post a fix for this separately. -- Thanks, Meghana Malladi