netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [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: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 14:17:26 +0100
From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
To: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
CC: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>, Maciej Fijalkowski
	<maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
	Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@...el.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@...com>, Ilias Apalodimas
	<ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Eric Dumazet
	<edumazet@...gle.com>, Michal Kubiak <michal.kubiak@...el.com>,
	<intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, David Christensen
	<drc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v5 03/14] page_pool: avoid
 calling no-op externals when possible

From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:17:50 +0800

> On 2023/11/27 22:32, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
>>
>> Chris, any thoughts on a global flag for skipping DMA syncs ladder?
> 
> It seems there was one already in the past:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/7c55a4d7-b4aa-25d4-1917-f6f355bd722e@arm.com/T/

It addresses a different problem, meaningless indirect calls, while this
one addresses meaningless direct calls :>
When the above gets merged, we could combine these two into one global,
but Eric wasn't active with his patch and I remember there were some
problems, so I wouldn't count on that it will arrive soon.

> 
>>
>>>
>>>
> 
>>>> +static inline bool page_pool_set_dma_addr(const struct page_pool *pool,
>>>> +					  struct page *page,
>>>> +					  dma_addr_t addr)
>>>>  {
>>>> +	unsigned long val = addr;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (unlikely(!addr)) {
>>>> +		page->dma_addr = 0;
>>>> +		return true;
>>>> +	}
>>>
>>> The above seems unrelated change?
>>
>> Related. We use page_put_set_dma_addr() to clear ::dma_addr as well
>> (grep for it in page_pool.c). In this case, we don't want
>> dma_need_sync() to be called as we explicitly pass zero. This check
>> zeroes the field and exits as quickly as possible.
> 
> The question seems to be about if we need to ensure the LSB of
> page->dma_addr is not set when page_pool releases a page back to page
> allocator?

But why do we need to call dma_need_sync(0) when freeing a page wasting
CPU cycles on relatively hot path?

> 
>> In case with the call mentioned above, zero is a compile-time constant
>> there, so that this little branch will be inlined with the rest dropped.

Thanks,
Olek