On 2023-11-07 15:03, Mina Almasry wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 2:55 PM David Ahern <dsahern@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/7/23 3:10 PM, Mina Almasry wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 3:44 PM David Ahern <dsahern@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/5/23 7:44 PM, Mina Almasry wrote:
>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>>>>> index eeeda849115c..1c351c138a5b 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>>>>> @@ -843,6 +843,9 @@ struct netdev_dmabuf_binding {
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_DMA_SHARED_BUFFER
>>>>> +struct page_pool_iov *
>>>>> +netdev_alloc_devmem(struct netdev_dmabuf_binding *binding);
>>>>> +void netdev_free_devmem(struct page_pool_iov *ppiov);
>>>>
>>>> netdev_{alloc,free}_dmabuf?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can do.
>>>
>>>> I say that because a dmabuf can be host memory, at least I am not aware
>>>> of a restriction that a dmabuf is device memory.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In my limited experience dma-buf is generally device memory, and
>>> that's really its use case. CONFIG_UDMABUF is a driver that mocks
>>> dma-buf with a memfd which I think is used for testing. But I can do
>>> the rename, it's more clear anyway, I think.
>>
>> config UDMABUF
>> bool "userspace dmabuf misc driver"
>> default n
>> depends on DMA_SHARED_BUFFER
>> depends on MEMFD_CREATE || COMPILE_TEST
>> help
>> A driver to let userspace turn memfd regions into dma-bufs.
>> Qemu can use this to create host dmabufs for guest framebuffers.
>>
>>
>> Qemu is just a userspace process; it is no way a special one.
>>
>> Treating host memory as a dmabuf should radically simplify the io_uring
>> extension of this set.
>
> I agree actually, and I was about to make that comment to David Wei's
> series once I have the time.
>
> David, your io_uring RX zerocopy proposal actually works with devmem
> TCP, if you're inclined to do that instead, what you'd do roughly is
> (I think):
>
> - Allocate a memfd,
> - Use CONFIG_UDMABUF to create a dma-buf out of that memfd.
> - Bind the dma-buf to the NIC using the netlink API in this RFC.
> - Your io_uring extensions and io_uring uapi should work as-is almost
> on top of this series, I think.
>
> If you do this the incoming packets should land into your memfd, which
> may or may not work for you. In the future if you feel inclined to use
> device memory, this approach that I'm describing here would be more
> extensible to device memory, because you'd already be using dma-bufs
> for your user memory; you'd just replace one kind of dma-buf (UDMABUF)
> with another.
>
How would TCP devmem change if we no longer assume that dmabuf is device
memory? Pavel will know more on the perf side, but I wouldn't want to
put any if/else on the hot path if we can avoid it. I could be wrong,
but right now in my mind using different memory providers solves this
neatly and the driver/networking stack doesn't need to care.
Mina, I believe you said at NetDev conf that you already had an udmabuf
implementation for testing. I would like to see this (you can send
privately) to see how TCP devmem would handle both user memory and
device memory.
>> That the io_uring set needs to dive into
>> page_pools is just wrong - complicating the design and code and pushing
>> io_uring into a realm it does not need to be involved in.
>>
>> Most (all?) of this patch set can work with any memory; only device
>> memory is unreadable.
>>
>>
>
>
