[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5830338c-d025-2fb8-46a6-58508493b2cf@huawei.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2023 19:40:19 +0800
From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
To: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
<edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni
<pabeni@...hat.com>, Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@...el.com>, Alexander Duyck
<alexanderduyck@...com>, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>, Ilias
Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>, Simon Horman
<simon.horman@...igine.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/9] net: skbuff: don't include
<net/page_pool/types.h> to <linux/skbuff.h>
On 2023/7/28 21:58, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 20:02:51 +0800
>
>> On 2023/7/27 22:43, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
>>> diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> +bool page_pool_return_skb_page(struct page *page, bool napi_safe)
>>
>> Still having the 'page_pool_' prefix seems odd here when it is in the
>> skbuff.c where most have skb_ or napi_ prefix, is it better to rename
>> it to something like napi_return_page_pool_page()?
>
> Given that how the function that goes next is named, maybe
> skb_pp_return_page() (or skb_pp_put_page())?
skb_pp_put_page() seems better.
And I like napi_pp_put_page() with 'napi_' prefix better as
it does not take a skb as parameter and the naming is aligned
with the 'napi_safe' parameter.
>
>>
>>> +{
>>> + struct napi_struct *napi;
>>> + struct page_pool *pp;
>>> + bool allow_direct;
>>> +
>>> + page = compound_head(page);
>>> +
>>> + /* page->pp_magic is OR'ed with PP_SIGNATURE after the allocation
>>> + * in order to preserve any existing bits, such as bit 0 for the
>>> + * head page of compound page and bit 1 for pfmemalloc page, so
>>> + * mask those bits for freeing side when doing below checking,
>>> + * and page_is_pfmemalloc() is checked in __page_pool_put_page()
>>> + * to avoid recycling the pfmemalloc page.
>>> + */
>>> + if (unlikely((page->pp_magic & ~0x3UL) != PP_SIGNATURE))
>>> + return false;
>>> +
>>> + pp = page->pp;
>>> +
>>> + /* Allow direct recycle if we have reasons to believe that we are
>>> + * in the same context as the consumer would run, so there's
>>> + * no possible race.
>>> + */
>>> + napi = READ_ONCE(pp->p.napi);
>>> + allow_direct = napi_safe && napi &&
>>> + READ_ONCE(napi->list_owner) == smp_processor_id();
>>> +
>>> + /* Driver set this to memory recycling info. Reset it on recycle.
>>> + * This will *not* work for NIC using a split-page memory model.
>>> + * The page will be returned to the pool here regardless of the
>>> + * 'flipped' fragment being in use or not.
>>> + */
>>> + page_pool_put_full_page(pp, page, allow_direct);
>>> +
>>> + return true;
>>> +}
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(page_pool_return_skb_page);
>>> +
>>> static bool skb_pp_recycle(struct sk_buff *skb, void *data, bool napi_safe)
>
> (this one)
>
>>> {
>>> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PAGE_POOL) || !skb->pp_recycle)
We may need the 'IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PAGE_POOL' checking in the newly
moved function too.
>>>
>
> Thanks,
> Olek
>
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists