From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 70618173; Tue, 5 Aug 2025 22:43:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754433837; cv=none; b=DNn9J3/JGZCTEXP/Cf2BFEBtVa8OWSMZCRPfNqVuZtc5uwOPlTVnkj4IOXUfWR+WwrCHymA+DWhabcFGNB9iVcuRqzedT77SrMoSmV5ttgZro6BWGkj54MTkCBagHtKz7+q2o1/rKDzP9HoqTQuDLIbMq2gz7/hggoor8HK7+ms= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754433837; c=relaxed/simple; bh=zp9mF9AxbmQANyGSCRsB0NBkIIX7UT18b/iQ51kQp9U=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=aCPqqqVcbH2pCzERwNu2oFCaUucwYPdxGZtSf/xNhOhKQRGuqfYlBWP4tMey5OecYyESjzVh6u5c2QISRMoUGLChkr1f9lf6oZOw8X7FoB8O9/z8gG/8nj8VDQaVd9rxFATG+b5SDyn4DSWtm5Vu2XQn821TlGTO07WhFpo+3eQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=YSsfpxLx; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="YSsfpxLx" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7BB35C4CEF0; Tue, 5 Aug 2025 22:43:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1754433837; bh=zp9mF9AxbmQANyGSCRsB0NBkIIX7UT18b/iQ51kQp9U=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=YSsfpxLxNs4nnQfy21Om9Ai9bSC+GAWaCowC9vlJhg/mdlyEhn8NE9KOXA+U3jcUD bmEwver1g7MoD13qC+0B0bN3SoUE4W9moSFbtHyyg0nPfg/69r4PG03za2IKnje5ZJ tO9y1qdK+kQxlRfFeobwjBxsqbiTvKUlyN0Gn2wdyu8GJaoeBiYCmq2RN3mJNq0iH2 VZ58jBswDOjvyNLdnY61Blo1dh4L3beTMicMof3CwmJGj+7dG8IZ4Z9pPK5/ZEuSsR xfsL2qK0emixyBXQmNL0WvSrtUcV0L2M4faA7xQRY8XEVYj9Xi9PBnfKGdtJTFlkAh k1Di2z0LS3VNQ== Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2025 15:43:55 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Pavel Begunkov Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, io-uring@vger.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet , Willem de Bruijn , Paolo Abeni , andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, horms@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, sdf@fomichev.me, almasrymina@google.com, dw@davidwei.uk, michael.chan@broadcom.com, dtatulea@nvidia.com, ap420073@gmail.com Subject: Re: [RFC v1 21/22] net: parametrise mp open with a queue config Message-ID: <20250805154355.3fc1b57a@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <11caecf8-5b81-49c7-8b73-847033151d51@gmail.com> References: <20250801171009.6789bf74@kernel.org> <11caecf8-5b81-49c7-8b73-847033151d51@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 13:50:08 +0100 Pavel Begunkov wrote: > > Since we don't allow MP to be replaced atomically today, we don't > > actually have to place the mp overrides in the config struct and > > involve the whole netdev_reconfig_start() _swap() _free() machinery. > > We can just stash the config in the queue state, and "logically" > > do what I described above. > > I was thinking stashing it in struct pp_memory_provider_params and > applying in netdev_rx_queue_restart(). Let me try to move it > into __netdev_queue_config. Any preference between keeping just > the size vs a qcfg pointer in pp_memory_provider_params? > > struct struct pp_memory_provider_params { > const struct memory_provider_ops *mp_ops; > u32 rx_buf_len; > }; > > vs > > struct struct pp_memory_provider_params { > const struct memory_provider_ops *mp_ops; > // providers will need to allocate and keep the qcfg > // until it's completely detached from the queues. > struct netdev_queue_config *qcfg; > }; > > The former one would be simpler for now. +1, I'd stick to the former. We can adjust later if need be.