[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <473f3576-ddf3-4388-aeec-d486f639950a@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2025 15:59:57 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>,
Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
iommu@...ts.linux.dev, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-arm-kernel@...s.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, wireguard@...ts.zx2c4.com, x86@...nel.org,
Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 18/35] io_uring/zcrx: remove "struct io_copy_cache"
and one nth_page() usage
On 22.08.25 13:32, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 8/21/25 21:06, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> We always provide a single dst page, it's unclear why the io_copy_cache
>> complexity is required.
>
> Because it'll need to be pulled outside the loop to reuse the page for
> multiple copies, i.e. packing multiple fragments of the same skb into
> it. Not finished, and currently it's wasting memory.
Okay, so what you're saying is that there will be follow-up work that
will actually make this structure useful.
>
> Why not do as below? Pages there never cross boundaries of their folios. > Do you want it to be taken into the io_uring tree?
This should better all go through the MM tree where we actually
guarantee contiguous pages within a folio. (see the cover letter)
>
> diff --git a/io_uring/zcrx.c b/io_uring/zcrx.c
> index e5ff49f3425e..18c12f4b56b6 100644
> --- a/io_uring/zcrx.c
> +++ b/io_uring/zcrx.c
> @@ -975,9 +975,9 @@ static ssize_t io_copy_page(struct io_copy_cache *cc, struct page *src_page,
>
> if (folio_test_partial_kmap(page_folio(dst_page)) ||
> folio_test_partial_kmap(page_folio(src_page))) {
> - dst_page = nth_page(dst_page, dst_offset / PAGE_SIZE);
> + dst_page += dst_offset / PAGE_SIZE;
> dst_offset = offset_in_page(dst_offset);
> - src_page = nth_page(src_page, src_offset / PAGE_SIZE);
> + src_page += src_offset / PAGE_SIZE;
Yeah, I can do that in the next version given that you have plans on
extending that code soon.
--
Cheers
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists