netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: stmmac: Introducing support for Page Pool

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 4 Jul 2019 15:04:41 +0300
From:   Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>
To:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com" 
        <linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: stmmac: Introducing support for Page
 Pool

Hi Jesper,

> On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 10:13:37 +0000
> Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com> wrote:
> > > The page_pool DMA mapping cannot be "kept" when page traveling into the
> > > network stack attached to an SKB.  (Ilias and I have a long term plan[1]
> > > to allow this, but you cannot do it ATM).  
> > 
> > The reason I recycle the page is this previous call to:
> > 
> > 	skb_copy_to_linear_data()
> > 
> > So, technically, I'm syncing to CPU the page(s) and then memcpy to a 
> > previously allocated SKB ... So it's safe to just recycle the mapping I 
> > think.
> 
> I didn't notice the skb_copy_to_linear_data(), will copy the entire
> frame, thus leaving the page unused and avail for recycle.

Yea this is essentially a 'copybreak' without the byte limitation that other
drivers usually impose (remember mvneta was doing this for all packets < 256b)

That's why i was concerned on what will happen on > 1000b frames and what the
memory pressure is going to be. 
The trade off here is copying vs mapping/unmapping.

> 
> Then it looks like you are doing the correct thing.  I will appreciate
> if you could add a comment above the call like:
> 
>    /* Data payload copied into SKB, page ready for recycle */
>    page_pool_recycle_direct(rx_q->page_pool, buf->page);
> 
> 
> > Its kind of using bounce buffers and I do see performance gain in this 
> > (I think the reason is because my setup uses swiotlb for DMA mapping).
> > 
> > Anyway, I'm open to some suggestions on how to improve this ...
> 
> I was surprised to see page_pool being used outside the surrounding XDP
> APIs (included/net/xdp.h).  For you use-case, where you "just" use
> page_pool as a driver-local fast recycle-allocator for RX-ring that
> keeps pages DMA mapped, it does make a lot of sense.  It simplifies the
> driver a fair amount:
> 
>   3 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 144 deletions(-)
> 
> Thanks for demonstrating a use-case for page_pool besides XDP, and for
> simplifying a driver with this.

Same here thanks Jose,

> 
> 
> > > Also remember that the page_pool requires you driver to do the
> > > DMA-sync operation.  I see a dma_sync_single_for_cpu(), but I
> > > didn't see a dma_sync_single_for_device() (well, I noticed one
> > > getting removed). (For some HW Ilias tells me that the
> > > dma_sync_single_for_device can be elided, so maybe this can still
> > > be correct for you).  
> > 
> > My HW just needs descriptors refilled which are in different coherent 
> > region so I don't see any reason for dma_sync_single_for_device() ...
> 
> For you use-case, given you are copying out the data, and not writing
> into it, then I don't think you need to do sync for device (before
> giving the device the page again for another RX-ring cycle).
> 
> The way I understand the danger: if writing to the DMA memory region,
> and not doing the DMA-sync for-device, then the HW/coherency-system can
> write-back the memory later.  Which creates a race with the DMA-device,
> if it is receiving a packet and is doing a write into same DMA memory
> region.  Someone correct me if I misunderstood this...

Similar understanding here

Cheers
/Ilias