On 10/9/24 1:32 PM, Mina Almasry wrote: > On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 9:57?AM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 10/9/24 10:55 AM, Mina Almasry wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 3:16?PM David Wei <dw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> This patchset adds support for zero copy rx into userspace pages using >>>> io_uring, eliminating a kernel to user copy. >>>> >>>> We configure a page pool that a driver uses to fill a hw rx queue to >>>> hand out user pages instead of kernel pages. Any data that ends up >>>> hitting this hw rx queue will thus be dma'd into userspace memory >>>> directly, without needing to be bounced through kernel memory. 'Reading' >>>> data out of a socket instead becomes a _notification_ mechanism, where >>>> the kernel tells userspace where the data is. The overall approach is >>>> similar to the devmem TCP proposal. >>>> >>>> This relies on hw header/data split, flow steering and RSS to ensure >>>> packet headers remain in kernel memory and only desired flows hit a hw >>>> rx queue configured for zero copy. Configuring this is outside of the >>>> scope of this patchset. >>>> >>>> We share netdev core infra with devmem TCP. The main difference is that >>>> io_uring is used for the uAPI and the lifetime of all objects are bound >>>> to an io_uring instance. >>> >>> I've been thinking about this a bit, and I hope this feedback isn't >>> too late, but I think your work may be useful for users not using >>> io_uring. I.e. zero copy to host memory that is not dependent on page >>> aligned MSS sizing. I.e. AF_XDP zerocopy but using the TCP stack. >> >> Not David, but come on, let's please get this moving forward. It's been >> stuck behind dependencies for seemingly forever, which are finally >> resolved. > > Part of the reason this has been stuck behind dependencies for so long > is because the dependency took the time to implement things very > generically (memory providers, net_iovs) and provided you with the > primitives that enable your work. And dealt with nacks in this area > you now don't have to deal with. For sure, not trying to put blame on anyone here, just saying it's been a long winding road. >> I don't think this is a reasonable ask at all for this >> patchset. If you want to work on that after the fact, then that's >> certainly an option. > > I think this work is extensible to sockets and the implementation need > not be heavily tied to io_uring; yes at least leaving things open for > a socket extension to be done easier in the future would be good, IMO. > I'll look at the series more closely to see if I actually have any > concrete feedback along these lines. I hope you're open to some of it > :-) I'm really not, if someone wants to tackle that, then they are welcome to do so after the fact. I don't want to create Yet Another dependency that would need resolving with another patch set behind it, particularly when no such dependency exists in the first place. There's zero reason why anyone interested in pursuing this path can't just do it on top. -- Jens Axboe
