Re: [PATCH net-next] tun: use xdp_get_frame_len()

[Jon Kohler]

> On May 8, 2025, at 10:16 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 08/05/2025 15.29, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>> Jon Kohler wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On May 7, 2025, at 4:56 PM, Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Jon Kohler wrote:
>>>>> Use xdp_get_frame_len helper to ensure xdp frame size is calculated
>>>>> correctly in both single buffer and multi buffer configurations.
>>>> 
>>>> Not necessarily opposed, but multi buffer is not actually possible
>>>> in this code path, right?
>>>> 
>>>> tun_put_user_xdp only copies xdp_frame->data, for one.
>>>> 
>>>> Else this would also be fix, not net-next material.
>>> 
>>> Correct, this is a prep patch for future multi buffer support,
>>> I’m not aware of any path that can currently do that thru
>>> this code.
>>> 
> 
> This is a good example of a performance paper-cut, from my rant.
> Adding xdp_get_frame_len() where it is not needed, adds extra code,
> in-form of an if-statement and a potential touching of a colder
> cache-line in skb_shared_info area.
> 
> 
>>> The reason for pursuing multi-buffer is to allow vhost/net
>>> batching to work again for large payloads.
>> I was not aware of that context. I'd add a comment to that in the
>> commit message, and send it as part of that series.
> 
> It need to part of that series, as that batching change should bring a
> larger performance benefit that outweighs the paper-cut.

Gotcha, mission understood. Sorry for the confusion, and thank you for
taking the time to walk me through that, I appreciate it. I’ll come back to
list when the larger series is ready for eyes. 

> 
> AFAICR there is also some dual packet handling code path for XDP in
> vhost_net/tun.  I'm also willing to take the paper-cut, for cleaning
> that up.
> 
> --Jesper

When you say dual packet handling, what are you referring to specifically?