[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230613214041.1c29a357@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 21:40:41 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
Cc: <davem@...emloft.net>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>, Jesper Dangaard Brouer
<hawk@...nel.org>, Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>, Eric
Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Alexei
Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, John
Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
<bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 5/5] page_pool: update document about frag
API
On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 21:02:56 +0800 Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> +2. page_pool_alloc_frag(): allocate memory with page splitting when driver knows
> + that the memory it need is always smaller than or equal to half of the page
> + allocated from page pool. Page splitting enables memory saving and thus avoid
> + TLB/cache miss for data access, but there also is some cost to implement page
> + splitting, mainly some cache line dirtying/bouncing for 'struct page' and
> + atomic operation for page->pp_frag_count.
> +
> +3. page_pool_alloc(): allocate memory with or without page splitting depending
> + on the requested memory size when driver doesn't know the size of memory it
> + need beforehand. It is a mix of the above two case, so it is a wrapper of the
> + above API to simplify driver's interface for memory allocation with least
> + memory utilization and performance penalty.
Seems like the semantics of page_pool_alloc() are always better than
page_pool_alloc_frag(). Is there a reason to keep these two separate?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists