netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: page_pool: add pages and released

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:   Mon, 17 Apr 2023 23:39:40 +0200
From:   Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, hawk@...nel.org,
        ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
        lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com, jdamato@...tly.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: page_pool: add pages and released_pages
 counters

> On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:16:40 +0200 Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > > What about high order? If we use bulk API for high order one day, 
> > > will @slow_high_order not count calls like @slow does? So we should
> > > bump the new counter for high order, too.  
> > 
> > yes, right. AFAIU "slow_high_order" and "slow" just count number of
> > pages returned to the pool consumer and not the number of pages
> > allocated to the pool (as you said, since we do not use bulking
> > for high_order allocation there is no difference at the moment).
> > What I would like to track is the number of allocated pages
> > (of any order) so I guess we can just increment "pages" counter in
> > __page_pool_alloc_page_order() as well. Agree?
> 
> Yup, that sounds better.

ack, fine. I am now wondering if these counters are useful just during
debugging or even in the normal use-case.
@Jesper, Ilias, Joe: what do you think?

Regards,
Lorenzo

> 
> > > Which makes it very similar to pages_state_hold_cnt, just 64bit...  
> > 
> > do you prefer to use pages_state_hold_cnt instead of adding a new
> > pages counter?
> 
> No strong preference either way. It's a tradeoff between saving 4B 
> and making the code a little more complex. Perhaps we should stick 
> to simplicity and add the counter like you did. Nothing stops us from
> optimizing later.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)