lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Misalignment, MIPS, and ip_hdr(skb)->version
Date
Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name> writes:

> On 2016-12-07 19:54, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 7:51 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>>> It's so much better to analyze properly where the misalignment comes from
>>> and address it at the source, as we have for various cases that trip up
>>> Sparc too.
>>
>> That's sort of my attitude too, hence starting this thread. Any
>> pointers you have about this would be most welcome, so as not to
>> perpetuate what already seems like an issue in other parts of the
>> stack.
> Hi Jason,
>
> I'm the author of that hackish LEDE/OpenWrt patch that works around the
> misalignment issues. Here's some context regarding that patch:
>
> I intentionally put it in the target specific patches for only one of
> our MIPS targets. There are a few ar71xx devices where the misalignment
> cannot be fixed, because the Ethernet MAC has a 4-byte DMA alignment
> requirement, and does not support inserting 2 bytes of padding to
> correct the IP header misalignment.
>
> With these limitations the choice was between this ugly network stack
> patch or inserting a very expensive memmove in the data path (which is
> better than taking the mis-alignment traps, but still hurts routing
> performance significantly).

I solved this problem in an Ethernet driver by copying the initial part
of the packet to an aligned skb and appending the remainder using
skb_add_rx_frag(). The kernel network stack only cares about the
headers, so the alignment of the packet payload doesn't matter.

--
Måns Rullgård

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-12-10 14:26    [W:2.094 / U:7.468 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site