On 10/08, David Wei wrote: > On 2024-10-08 08:58, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > > On 10/07, David Wei wrote: > >> From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> There are scenarios in which the zerocopy path might get a normal > >> in-kernel buffer, it could be a mis-steered packet or simply the linear > >> part of an skb. Another use case is to allow the driver to allocate > >> kernel pages when it's out of zc buffers, which makes it more resilient > >> to spikes in load and allow the user to choose the balance between the > >> amount of memory provided and performance. > > > > Tangential: should there be some clear way for the users to discover that > > (some counter of some entry on cq about copy fallback)? > > > > Or the expectation is that somebody will run bpftrace to diagnose > > (supposedly) poor ZC performance when it falls back to copy? > > Yeah there definitely needs to be a way to notify the user that copy > fallback happened. Right now I'm relying on bpftrace hooking into > io_zcrx_copy_chunk(). Doing it per cqe (which is emitted per frag) is > too much. I can think of two other options: > > 1. Send a final cqe at the end of a number of frag cqes with a count of > the number of copies. > 2. Register a secondary area just for handling copies. > > Other suggestions are also very welcome. SG, thanks. Up to you and Pavel on the mechanism and whether to follow up separately. Maybe even move this fallback (this patch) into that separate series as well? Will be easier to review/accept the rest.
