netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 03/14] page_pool: avoid calling no-op externals when possible

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: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 17:50:57 +0100
From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>, Michal Kubiak
	<michal.kubiak@...el.com>, Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@...el.com>,
	Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@...com>, David Christensen
	<drc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>, "Ilias
 Apalodimas" <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>, Paul Menzel
	<pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "David S.
 Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, "Paolo
 Abeni" <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 03/14] page_pool: avoid calling no-op
 externals when possible

From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2023 10:17:20 -0800

> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 15:32:19 +0100 Alexander Lobakin wrote:
>>> Sorry for not remembering the suggestion:(  
>>
>> In the previous versions of this change I used a global flag per whole
>> page_pool, just like XSk does for the whole XSk buff pool, then you
>> proposed to use the lowest bit of ::dma_addr and store it per page, so
>> that it would be more granular/precise. I tested it and it doesn't
>> perform worse than global, but in some cases may be beneficial.
> 
> FWIW I'd vote to stick to per-page pool. You seem to handle the
> sizeof(dma_addr_t) > sizeof(long) case correctly but the code is
> growing in complexity, providing no known/measurable benefit.
> We can always do this later but for now it seems like a premature
> optimization to me.

Yeah, this also seems more logical and optimal to me. Will wait a bit
for a possible reply from Chris and then send the next rev.

Thanks,
Olek