Message-ID: <75a332fa-74e4-7b7b-553e-3a1a6cb85dff@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 7 May 2021 11:23:28 +0800
From:   Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
To:     Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>
CC:     Matteo Croce <mcroce@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Ayush Sawal <ayush.sawal@...lsio.com>,
        "Vinay Kumar Yadav" <vinay.yadav@...lsio.com>,
        Rohit Maheshwari <rohitm@...lsio.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
        Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Mirko Lindner <mlindner@...vell.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        "Tariq Toukan" <tariqt@...dia.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        "Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        "John Fastabend" <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Boris Pismenny <borisp@...dia.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@...ud.ionos.com>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
        Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@...me>,
        Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>, wenxu <wenxu@...oud.cn>,
        Kevin Hao <haokexin@...il.com>,
        Aleksandr Nogikh <nogikh@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
        Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/5] page_pool: recycle buffers

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? Is the page pool also stored in
page_private() and a different signature is used to indicate that?

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?

> Regarding the page_ref_dec(), which as I said sounds doable, I'd prefer
> playing it safe for now and getting rid of the buffers that somehow ended up
> holding an extra reference.  Once this gets approved we can go back and try to
> save the extra space.  I hope I am not wrong but the changes required to
> support a few extra refcounts should not change the current patches much.
> 
> Thanks for taking the time on this!

Thanks all invovled in the effort improving page pool too:)

> /Ilias
> 
>>>
>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/154413868810.21735.572808840657728172.stgit@firesoul/
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> /Ilias
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
> 
> .
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists