From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
To: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>
Cc: Matteo Croce <mcroce@linux.microsoft.com>,
<netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Ayush Sawal <ayush.sawal@chelsio.com>,
"Vinay Kumar Yadav" <vinay.yadav@chelsio.com>,
Rohit Maheshwari <rohitm@chelsio.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
Marcin Wojtas <mw@semihalf.com>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Mirko Lindner <mlindner@marvell.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
"Tariq Toukan" <tariqt@nvidia.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org>,
"Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
"John Fastabend" <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
Boris Pismenny <borisp@nvidia.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>, Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@cloud.ionos.com>,
Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@gmail.com>,
Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@pm.me>,
Cong Wang <cong.wang@bytedance.com>, wenxu <wenxu@ucloud.cn>,
Kevin Hao <haokexin@gmail.com>,
Aleksandr Nogikh <nogikh@google.com>,
Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>,
Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>,
Guillaume Nault <gnault@redhat.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
<bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>,
Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/5] page_pool: recycle buffers
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 16:28:30 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bdd97ac5-f932-beec-109e-ace9cd62f661@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YJTm4uhvqCy2lJH8@apalos.home>
On 2021/5/7 15:06, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 11:23:28AM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
>> On 2021/5/6 20:58, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not really, the opposite is happening here. If the pp_recycle bit is set we
>>>>> will always call page_pool_return_skb_page(). If the page signature matches
>>>>> the 'magic' set by page pool we will always call xdp_return_skb_frame() will
>>>>> end up calling __page_pool_put_page(). If the refcnt is 1 we'll try
>>>>> to recycle the page. If it's not we'll release it from page_pool (releasing
>>>>> some internal references we keep) unmap the buffer and decrement the refcnt.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I understood the above is what the page pool do now.
>>>>
>>>> But the question is who is still holding an extral reference to the page when
>>>> kfree_skb()? Perhaps a cloned and pskb_expand_head()'ed skb is holding an extral
>>>> reference to the same page? So why not just do a page_ref_dec() if the orginal skb
>>>> is freed first, and call __page_pool_put_page() when the cloned skb is freed later?
>>>> So that we can always reuse the recyclable page from a recyclable skb. This may
>>>> make the page_pool_destroy() process delays longer than before, I am supposed the
>>>> page_pool_destroy() delaying for cloned skb case does not really matters here.
>>>>
>>>> If the above works, I think the samiliar handling can be added to RX zerocopy if
>>>> the RX zerocopy also hold extral references to the recyclable page from a recyclable
>>>> skb too?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, this sounds doable, but I'll have to go back code it and see if it
>>> really makes sense. However I'd still prefer the support to go in as-is
>>> (including the struct xdp_mem_info in struct page, instead of a page_pool
>>> pointer).
>>>
>>> There's a couple of reasons for that. If we keep the struct xdp_mem_info we
>>> can in the future recycle different kind of buffers using __xdp_return().
>>> And this is a non intrusive change if we choose to store the page pool address
>>> directly in the future. It just affects the internal contract between the
>>> page_pool code and struct page. So it won't affect any drivers that already
>>> use the feature.
>>
>> This patchset has embeded a signature field in "struct page", and xdp_mem_info
>> is stored in page_private(), which seems not considering the case for associating
>> the page pool with "struct page" directly yet?
>
> Correct
>
>> Is the page pool also stored in
>> page_private() and a different signature is used to indicate that?
>
> No only struct xdp_mem_info as you mentioned before
>
>>
>> I am not saying we have to do it in this patchset, but we have to consider it
>> while we are adding new signature field to "struct page", right?
>
> We won't need a new signature. The signature in both cases is there to
> guarantee the page you are trying to recycle was indeed allocated by page_pool.
>
> Basically we got two design choices here:
> - We store the page_pool ptr address directly in page->private and then,
> we call into page_pool APIs directly to do the recycling.
> That would eliminate the lookup through xdp_mem_info and the
> XDP helpers to locate page pool pointer (through __xdp_return).
> - You store the xdp_mem_info on page_private. In that case you need to go
> through __xdp_return() to locate the page_pool pointer. Although we might
> loose some performance that would allow us to recycle additional memory types
> and not only MEM_TYPE_PAGE_POOL (in case we ever need it).
So the signature field in "struct page" is used to only indicate a page is
from a page pool, then how do we tell the content of page_private() if both of
the above choices are needed, we might still need an extra indicator to tell
page_private() is page_pool ptr or xdp_mem_info.
It seems storing the page pool ptr in page_private() is clear for recyclable
page from a recyclable skb use case, and the use case for storing xdp_mem_info
in page_private() is unclear yet? As XDP seems to have the xdp_mem_info in the
"struct xdp_frame", so it does not need the xdp_mem_info from page_private().
If the above is true, what does not really makes sense to me here is that:
why do we first implement a unclear use case for storing xdp_mem_info in
page_private(), why not implement the clear use case for storing page pool ptr
in page_private() first?
>
>
> I think both choices are sane. What I am trying to explain here, is
> regardless of what we choose now, we can change it in the future without
> affecting the API consumers at all. What will change internally is the way we
> lookup the page pool pointer we are trying to recycle.
It seems the below API need changing?
+static inline void skb_mark_for_recycle(struct sk_buff *skb, struct page *page,
+ struct xdp_mem_info *mem)
>
> [...]
>
>
> Cheers
> /Ilias
>
> .
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-07 8:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-09 22:37 [PATCH net-next v3 0/5] page_pool: recycle buffers Matteo Croce
2021-04-09 22:37 ` [PATCH net-next v3 1/5] xdp: reduce size of struct xdp_mem_info Matteo Croce
2021-04-09 22:37 ` [PATCH net-next v3 2/5] mm: add a signature in struct page Matteo Croce
2021-04-10 15:48 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-04-10 16:16 ` Ilias Apalodimas
2021-04-10 17:42 ` Shakeel Butt
2021-04-10 18:27 ` Ilias Apalodimas
2021-04-10 19:39 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-04-11 10:05 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2021-04-14 19:41 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2021-04-14 20:09 ` Shakeel Butt
2021-04-14 20:51 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-04-19 5:12 ` Ilias Apalodimas
2021-04-19 14:57 ` Shakeel Butt
2021-04-19 15:43 ` Ilias Apalodimas
2021-04-19 16:21 ` Shakeel Butt
2021-04-19 18:41 ` Ilias Apalodimas
2021-04-19 11:22 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2021-04-19 13:01 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-04-20 8:10 ` Ilias Apalodimas
2021-04-09 22:37 ` [PATCH net-next v3 3/5] page_pool: Allow drivers to hint on SKB recycling Matteo Croce
2021-04-10 0:11 ` Ilias Apalodimas
2021-04-10 0:39 ` Matteo Croce
2021-04-09 22:38 ` [PATCH net-next v3 4/5] mvpp2: recycle buffers Matteo Croce
2021-04-09 22:38 ` [PATCH net-next v3 5/5] mvneta: " Matteo Croce
2021-04-29 8:27 ` [PATCH net-next v3 0/5] page_pool: " Yunsheng Lin
2021-04-29 18:51 ` Ilias Apalodimas
2021-04-30 3:01 ` Yunsheng Lin
2021-04-30 16:24 ` Ilias Apalodimas
2021-04-30 17:32 ` Ilias Apalodimas
2021-05-03 7:29 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2021-05-06 12:34 ` Yunsheng Lin
2021-05-06 12:58 ` Ilias Apalodimas
2021-05-07 3:23 ` Yunsheng Lin
2021-05-07 7:06 ` Ilias Apalodimas
2021-05-07 8:28 ` Yunsheng Lin [this message]
2021-05-07 10:19 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2021-05-07 11:31 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-05-09 5:11 ` Shay Agroskin
2021-05-11 8:41 ` Ilias Apalodimas
2021-05-10 2:20 ` Yunsheng Lin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bdd97ac5-f932-beec-109e-ace9cd62f661@huawei.com \
--to=linyunsheng@huawei.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alobakin@pm.me \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=ayush.sawal@chelsio.com \
--cc=borisp@nvidia.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=cong.wang@bytedance.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dsahern@gmail.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
--cc=gnault@redhat.com \
--cc=guoqing.jiang@cloud.ionos.com \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=haokexin@gmail.com \
--cc=hawk@kernel.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org \
--cc=jakub@cloudflare.com \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jonathan.lemon@gmail.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linmiaohe@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=lorenzo@kernel.org \
--cc=mcroce@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=mlindner@marvell.com \
--cc=mw@semihalf.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nogikh@google.com \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rohitm@chelsio.com \
--cc=saeedm@nvidia.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=tariqt@nvidia.com \
--cc=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=vinay.yadav@chelsio.com \
--cc=walken@google.com \
--cc=wenxu@ucloud.cn \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=willemb@google.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=yuzhao@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).