[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191119161109.7cd83965@carbon>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 16:11:09 +0100
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>
Cc: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com,
mcroce@...hat.com, jonathan.lemon@...il.com, brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 2/3] net: page_pool: add the possibility to
sync DMA memory for device
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 13:33:36 +0200
Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org> wrote:
> > > diff --git a/net/core/page_pool.c b/net/core/page_pool.c
> > > index dfc2501c35d9..4f9aed7bce5a 100644
> > > --- a/net/core/page_pool.c
> > > +++ b/net/core/page_pool.c
> > > @@ -47,6 +47,13 @@ static int page_pool_init(struct page_pool *pool,
> > > (pool->p.dma_dir != DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL))
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > + /* In order to request DMA-sync-for-device the page needs to
> > > + * be mapped
> > > + */
> > > + if ((pool->p.flags & PP_FLAG_DMA_SYNC_DEV) &&
> > > + !(pool->p.flags & PP_FLAG_DMA_MAP))
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> >
> > I like that you have moved this check to setup time.
> >
> > There are two other parameters the DMA_SYNC_DEV depend on:
> >
> > struct page_pool_params pp_params = {
> > .order = 0,
> > - .flags = PP_FLAG_DMA_MAP,
> > + .flags = PP_FLAG_DMA_MAP | PP_FLAG_DMA_SYNC_DEV,
> > .pool_size = size,
> > .nid = cpu_to_node(0),
> > .dev = pp->dev->dev.parent,
> > .dma_dir = xdp_prog ? DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL : DMA_FROM_DEVICE,
> > + .offset = pp->rx_offset_correction,
> > + .max_len = MVNETA_MAX_RX_BUF_SIZE,
> > };
> >
> > Can you add a check, that .max_len must not be zero. The reason is
> > that I can easily see people misconfiguring this. And the effect is
> > that the DMA-sync-for-device is essentially disabled, without user
> > realizing this. The not-realizing part is really bad, especially
> > because bugs that can occur from this are very rare and hard to catch.
>
> +1 we sync based on the min() value of those
>
> >
> > I'm up for discussing if there should be a similar check for .offset.
> > IMHO we should also check .offset is configured, and then be open to
> > remove this check once a driver user want to use offset=0. Does the
> > mvneta driver already have a use-case for this (in non-XDP mode)?
>
> Not sure about this, since it does not break anything apart from some
> performance hit
I don't follow the 'performance hit' comment. This is checked at setup
time (page_pool_init), thus it doesn't affect runtime.
This is a generic optimization principle that I use a lot. Moving code
checks out of fast-path, and instead do more at setup/load-time, or
even at shutdown-time (like we do for page_pool e.g. check refcnt
invariance). This principle is also heavily used by BPF, that adjust
BPF-instructions at load-time. It is core to getting the performance
we need for high-speed networking.
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists