Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-93352-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1709118356-133960-1-git-send-email-wangyunjian@huawei.com>
 <ZeHiBm/frFvioIIt@boxer> <65e2212e66769_158220294f@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <65e2212e66769_158220294f@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:32:14 +0800
Message-ID: <CACGkMEsd4icR3EDHS-4DjmKMeez41r2SnNP4j70gAdzq8O=w=w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] tun: AF_XDP Tx zero-copy support
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>, Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@huawei.com>, mst@redhat.com, 
	kuba@kernel.org, bjorn@kernel.org, magnus.karlsson@intel.com, 
	jonathan.lemon@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net, bpf@vger.kernel.org, 
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, 
	virtualization@lists.linux.dev, xudingke@huawei.com, liwei395@huawei.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Mar 2, 2024 at 2:40=E2=80=AFAM Willem de Bruijn
<willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 07:05:56PM +0800, Yunjian Wang wrote:
> > > This patch set allows TUN to support the AF_XDP Tx zero-copy feature,
> > > which can significantly reduce CPU utilization for XDP programs.
> >
> > Why no Rx ZC support though? What will happen if I try rxdrop xdpsock
> > against tun with this patch? You clearly allow for that.
>
> This is AF_XDP receive zerocopy, right?
>
> The naming is always confusing with tun, but even though from a tun
> PoV this happens on ndo_start_xmit, it is the AF_XDP equivalent to
> tun_put_user.
>
> So the implementation is more like other device's Rx ZC.
>
> I would have preferred that name, but I think Jason asked for this
> and given tun's weird status, there is something bo said for either.
>

From the the view of the AF_XDP userspace program, it's the TX path,
and as you said it happens on the TUN xmit path as well. When using
with a VM, it's the RX path.

So TX seems better.

Thanks