[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1097885.1749048961@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2025 15:56:01 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>,
willy@...radead.org, hch@...radead.org,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Device mem changes vs pinning/zerocopy changes
Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com> wrote:
> > (1) Separate fragment lifetime management from sk_buff. No more wangling
> > of refcounts in the skbuff code. If you clone an skb, you stick an
> > extra ref on the lifetime management struct, not the page.
>
> For device memory TCP we already have this: net_devmem_dmabuf_binding
> is the owner of the frags. And when we reference skb frag we reference
> only this owner, not individual chunks: __skb_frag_ref -> get_netmem ->
> net_devmem_get_net_iov (ref on the binding).
>
> Will it be possible to generalize this to cover MSG_ZEROCOPY and splice
> cases? From what I can tell, this is somewhat equivalent of your net_txbuf.
Yes and no. The net_devmem stuff that's now upstream still manages refs on a
per-skb-frag basis. What I'm looking to do is to move it out of the skb and
into a separate struct so that the ref on a chunk of memory can be shared
between several skb-frags, quite possibly spread between several skbs.
This is especially important for various types of zerocopy memory where we
won't actually be allowed to take refs.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists