[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <91cd084f-f8a3-19e7-42d7-95138378aa9d@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 11:38:24 +0800
From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
To: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>
CC: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@...hat.com>, <brouer@...hat.com>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
<davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linuxarm@...neuler.org>,
<hawk@...nel.org>, <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>, <alobakin@...me>,
<willemb@...gle.com>, <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
<pabeni@...hat.com>, <haokexin@...il.com>, <nogikh@...gle.com>,
<elver@...gle.com>, <memxor@...il.com>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
<dsahern@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] skbuff: keep track of pp page when
__skb_frag_ref() is called
On 2021/9/18 17:23, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> [...]
>
[...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IOW in skb_free_head() an we replace:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if (skb_pp_recycle(skb, head))
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> if (page->pp_magic & ~0x3UL) == PP_SIGNATURE)
>>>>>>> and get rid of the 'bool recycle' argument in __skb_frag_unref()?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the frag page of a skb, it seems ok to get rid of the 'bool recycle'
>>>>>> argument in __skb_frag_unref(), as __skb_frag_unref() and __skb_frag_ref()
>>>>>> is symmetrically called to put/get a page.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the head page of a skb, we might need to make sure the head page
>>>>>> passed to __build_skb_around() meet below condition:
>>>>>> do pp_frag_count incrementing instead of _refcount incrementing when
>>>>>> the head page is not newly allocated and it is from page pool.
>>>>>> It seems hard to audit that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yea that seems a bit weird at least to me and I am not sure, it's the only
>>>>> place we'll have to go and do that.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, That is why I avoid changing the behavior of a head page for a skb.
>>>> In other word, maybe we should not track if head page for a skb is pp page
>>>> or not when the page'_refcount is incremented during network stack journey,
>>>> just treat it as normal page?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am not sure I understand this.
>>
>> I was saying only treat the head page of a skb as pp page when it is newly
>> allocated from page pool, if that page is reference-counted to build another
>> head page for another skb later, just treat it as normal page.
>
> But the problem here is that a cloned/expanded SKB could trigger a race
> when freeing the fragments. That's why we reset the pp_recycle bit if
> there's still references to the frags. What does 'normal' page means here?
> We'll have to at least unmap dma part.
'normal' page means non-pp page here. Maybe forget the above.
I read the code related to head page headling for a skb, it seems the
NAPI_GRO_FREE_STOLEN_HEAD and skb_head_frag_to_page_desc() case is just
fine as it is now when the page signature is used to identify a pp page
for the head page of a skb uniquely?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> bit 0 of frag->bv_page is different way of indicatior for a pp page,
>>>>>>>> it is better we do not confuse with the page signature way. Using
>>>>>>>> a bit 0 may give us a free word in 'struct page' if we manage to
>>>>>>>> use skb->pp_recycle to indicate a head page of the skb uniquely, meaning
>>>>>>>> page->pp_magic can be used for future feature.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> for pp_recycle right now? __skb_frag_unref() in skb_shift() or
>>>>>>>>>>> skb_try_coalesce() (the latter can probably be removed tbh).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If we decide to go with accurate indicator of a pp page, we just need
>>>>>>>>>> to make sure network stack use __skb_frag_unref() and __skb_frag_ref()
>>>>>>>>>> to put and get a page frag, the indicator checking need only done in
>>>>>>>>>> __skb_frag_unref() and __skb_frag_ref(), so the skb_shift() and
>>>>>>>>>> skb_try_coalesce() should be fine too.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Another way is to use the bit 0 of frag->bv_page ptr to indicate if a frag
>>>>>>>>>>>> page is from page pool.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the 'struct page' signature? And the pp_recycle bit will
>>>>>>>>>>> continue to exist?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> pp_recycle bit might only exist or is only used for the head page for the skb.
>>>>>>>>>> The bit 0 of frag->bv_page ptr can be used to indicate a frag page uniquely.
>>>>>>>>>> Doing a memcpying of shinfo or "*fragto = *fragfrom" automatically pass the
>>>>>>>>>> indicator to the new shinfo before doing a __skb_frag_ref(), and __skb_frag_ref()
>>>>>>>>>> will increment the _refcount or pp_frag_count according to the bit 0 of
>>>>>>>>>> frag->bv_page.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> By the way, I also prototype the above idea, and it seems to work well too.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As long as no one else touches this, it's just another way of identifying a
>>>>>>>>> page_pool allocated page. But are we gaining by that? Not using
>>>>>>>>> virt_to_head_page() as stated above? But in that case you still need to
>>>>>>>>> keep pp_recycle around.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, we do not need the pp_recycle, as long as the we make sure __skb_frag_ref()
>>>>>>>> is called after memcpying the shinfo or doing "*fragto = *fragfrom".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But we'll have to keep it for the skb head in this case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As above, I am not really look into skb head case:)
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me take a step back here, because I think we drifted a bit.
>>>>> The page signature was introduced in order to be able to identify skb
>>>>> fragments. The problem was that you couldn't rely on the pp_recycle bit of
>>>>> the skb head, since fragments could come from anywhere. So you use the
>>>>> skb bit as a hint for skb frags, and you eventually decide using the page
>>>>> signature.
>>>>>
>>>>> So we got 3 options (Anything I've missed ?)
>>>>> - try to remove pp_recycle bit, since the page signature is enough for the
>>>>> skb head and fragments. That in my opinion is the cleanest option, as
>>>>> long as we can prove there's no performance hit on the standard network
>>>>> path.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Replace the page signature with frag->bv_page bit0. In that case we
>>>>> still have to keep the pp_recycle bit, but we do have an 'easier'
>>>>> indication that a skb frag comes from page_pool. That's still pretty
>>>>> safe, since you now have unique identifiers for the skb and page
>>>>> fragments and you can be sure of their origin (page pool or not).
>>>>> What I am missing here, is what do we get out of this? I think the
>>>>> advantage is not having to call virt_to_head_page() for frags ?
>>>>
>>>> Not using the signature will free a word space in struct page for future
>>>> feature?
>>>
>>> Yea that's another thing we gain, but I am not sure how useful how this is
>>> going to turn out.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Keep all of them(?) and use frag->bv_page bit0 similarly to pp_recycle
>>>>> bit? I don't see much value on this one, I am just keeping it here for
>>>>> completeness.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For safty and performance reason:
>>>> 1. maybe we should move the pp_recycle bit from "struct sk_buff" to
>>>> "struct skb_shared_info", and use it to only indicate if the head page of
>>>> a skb is from page pool.
>>>
>>> What's the safety or performance we gain out of this? The only performance
>>
>> safety is that we still have two ways to indicate a pp page.
>> the pp_recycle bit in "struct skb_shared_info" or frag->bv_page bit0 tell
>> if we want to treat a page as pp page, the page signature checking is used
>> to tell if we if set those bits correctly?
>>
>
> Yea but in the long run we'll want the page signature. So that's basically
> (2) once we do that.
>
>>> I can think of is the dirty cache line of the recycle bit we set to 0.
>>> If we do move it to skb_shared)info we'll have to make sure it's on the
>>> same cacheline as the ones we already change.
>>
>> Yes, when we move the pp_recycle bit to skb_shared_info, that bit is only
>> set once, and we seems to not need to worry about skb doing cloning or
>> expanding as the it is part of head page(shinfo is part of head page).
>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. The frag->bv_page bit0 is used to indicate if the frag page of a skb is
>>>> from page pool, and modify __skb_frag_unref() and __skb_frag_ref() to keep
>>>> track of it.
>>>>
>>>> 3. For safty or debugging reason, keep the page signature for now, and put a
>>>> page signature WARN_ON checking in page pool to catch any misbehaviour?
>>>>
>>>> If there is not bug showing up later, maybe we can free the page signature space
>>>> for other usage?
>>>
>>> Yea that's essentially identical to (2) but we move the pp_recycle on the
>>> skb_shared_info. I'd really prefer getting rid of the pp_recycle entirely,
>>
>> When also removing the pp_recycle for head page of a skb, it seems a little
>> risky as we are not sure when a not-newly-allocated pp page is called with
>> __build_skb_around() to build to head page?
>
> Removing the pp_recyle, is only safe if we keep the page signature. I was
> suggesting we follow (1) first before starting moving things around.
I suppose (1) means the below, right:
> - try to remove pp_recycle bit, since the page signature is enough for the
> skb head and fragments. That in my opinion is the cleanest option, as
> long as we can prove there's no performance hit on the standard network
> path.
It seems doable if my above analysis of head page headling for a skb does not
miss anything.
>
>>
>>> since it's the cleanest thing we can do in my head. If we ever need an
>>> extra 4/8 bytes in the future, we can always go back and implement this.
>>>
>>> Alexander/Jesper any additional thoughts?
>>>
>
> Thanks
> /Ilias
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists