[EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 0/5] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw: add AF_XDP zero copy support

[Malladi, Meghana]

Hi Jakub,

Sorry for the duplicate mail.

On 7/14/2025 8:36 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 14: 50: 05 +0530 Malladi, Meghana wrote: > > AF_XDP 
> performance using 64 byte packets in Kpps. > > Benchmark: XDP-SKB XDP- 
> Native XDP-Native(ZeroCopy) > > rxdrop 317 504 824 > > txonly 400 405 757 >
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
> This message was sent from outside of Texas Instruments.
> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source 
> of this email and know the content is safe.
> Report Suspicious
> <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/G3vK! 
> uDdqXRfP1m37CoZlPNNDnQgOintsvKy- 
> cENuCwB1b5Qxa66rT1SFJDmyny6jsjalW7Wur6ukCSGrdQ$>
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
> 
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 14:50:05 +0530 Malladi, Meghana wrote:
>> > AF_XDP performance using 64 byte packets in Kpps.
>> > Benchmark:	XDP-SKB		XDP-Native	XDP-Native(ZeroCopy)
>> > rxdrop		317		504		824
>> > txonly		400		405		757
>> > l2fwd 		207		264		0
>> > 
>> > AF_XDP performance using 1500 byte packets in Kpps.
>> > Benchmark:	XDP-SKB		XDP-Native	XDP-Native(ZeroCopy)
>> > rxdrop		82		82		82
>> > txonly		82		82		82
>> > l2fwd 		82		82		82
>> > 
>> > [1]: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/xdp-project/bpf-examples/ 
> tree/master/AF_XDP-example__;!!G3vK!Sv1p-bFPBDlzD-YMO2sjo- 
> X2gv3CW5uHD_O771StRVzMR8Vr75k7tTGQJ27MRy_fz3d9m40aZg$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/xdp-project/bpf-examples/tree/master/AF_XDP-example__;!!G3vK!Sv1p-bFPBDlzD-YMO2sjo-X2gv3CW5uHD_O771StRVzMR8Vr75k7tTGQJ27MRy_fz3d9m40aZg$>
>> > 
>> > To:
>> > 
>> > Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <rogerq at kernel.org>  
>> 
>> This series crashes Linux on am64xx-hsevm, when I tried nfs boot using 
>> AM65-CPSW-NUSS driver:
>> logs: 
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://gist.github.com/MeghanaMalladiTI/ 
> d655a1c8ca88113ee7f5f57d6ab0ec4c__;!!G3vK!Sv1p-bFPBDlzD-YMO2sjo- 
> X2gv3CW5uHD_O771StRVzMR8Vr75k7tTGQJ27MRy_fz3ecuWN_dw$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://gist.github.com/MeghanaMalladiTI/d655a1c8ca88113ee7f5f57d6ab0ec4c__;!!G3vK!Sv1p-bFPBDlzD-YMO2sjo-X2gv3CW5uHD_O771StRVzMR8Vr75k7tTGQJ27MRy_fz3ecuWN_dw$>
>> 
>> Seems like you have reverted the fix for the same bug which was reported 
>> by Siddharth and fixed by Julien: 
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/ 
> all/7f7fb71a-6d15-46f1-b63c-b569a2e230b7 at baylibre.com/__;!!G3vK!Sv1p- 
> bFPBDlzD-YMO2sjo-X2gv3CW5uHD_O771StRVzMR8Vr75k7tTGQJ27MRy_fz3exh7VnCw$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/all/7f7fb71a-6d15-46f1-b63c-b569a2e230b7@baylibre.com/__;!!G3vK!Sv1p-bFPBDlzD-YMO2sjo-X2gv3CW5uHD_O771StRVzMR8Vr75k7tTGQJ27MRy_fz3exh7VnCw$>
>> 
>> reverted lines:
>> 		if (!common->ports[port].ndev)
>> 		/* FIXME should we BUG here? */
>> 			continue;
>> 
>> Can you please take a look at it.
> 
> Just to be clear -- you're reporting this problem to Roger so that its
> fixed before the series is reposted? I don't see this in the tree, I
> wanted to make sure it's not something I need to track as a regression.
> 

Yes you are right. This isn't a regression, I reported this as part of 
my testing for this RFC patch series.

-- 
Thanks,
Meghana Malladi