On 10/9/24 23:01, Mina Almasry wrote:
On Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 3:16 PM David Wei <dw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@xxxxxxxxx>
Implement a page pool memory provider for io_uring to receieve in a
zero copy fashion. For that, the provider allocates user pages wrapped
around into struct net_iovs, that are stored in a previously registered
struct net_iov_area.
Unlike with traditional receives, for which pages from a page pool can
be deallocated right after the user receives data, e.g. via recv(2),
we extend the lifetime by recycling buffers only after the user space
acknowledges that it's done processing the data via the refill queue.
Before handing buffers to the user, we mark them by bumping the refcount
by a bias value IO_ZC_RX_UREF, which will be checked when the buffer is
returned back. When the corresponding io_uring instance and/or page pool
are destroyed, we'll force back all buffers that are currently in the
user space in ->io_pp_zc_scrub by clearing the bias.
This is an interesting design choice. In my experience the page_pool
works the opposite way, i.e. all the netmems in it are kept alive
until the user is done with them. Deviating from that requires custom
behavior (->scrub), which may be fine, but why do this? Isn't it
better for uapi perspective to keep the memory alive until the user is
done with it?
It's hardly interesting, it's _exactly_ the same thing devmem TCP
does by attaching the lifetime of buffers to a socket's xarray,
which requires custom behaviour. Maybe I wasn't clear on one thing
though, it's accounting from the page pool's perspective. Those are
user pages, likely still mapped into the user space, in which case
they're not going to be destroyed.
Refcounting and lifetime:
Initially, all buffers are considered unallocated and stored in
->freelist, at which point they are not yet directly exposed to the core
page pool code and not accounted to page pool's pages_state_hold_cnt.
The ->alloc_netmems callback will allocate them by placing into the
page pool's cache, setting the refcount to 1 as usual and adjusting
pages_state_hold_cnt.
Then, either the buffer is dropped and returns back to the page pool
into the ->freelist via io_pp_zc_release_netmem, in which case the page
pool will match hold_cnt for us with ->pages_state_release_cnt. Or more
likely the buffer will go through the network/protocol stacks and end up
in the corresponding socket's receive queue. From there the user can get
it via an new io_uring request implemented in following patches. As
mentioned above, before giving a buffer to the user we bump the refcount
by IO_ZC_RX_UREF.
Once the user is done with the buffer processing, it must return it back
via the refill queue, from where our ->alloc_netmems implementation can
grab it, check references, put IO_ZC_RX_UREF, and recycle the buffer if
there are no more users left. As we place such buffers right back into
the page pools fast cache and they didn't go through the normal pp
release path, they are still considered "allocated" and no pp hold_cnt
is required.
Why is this needed? In general the provider is to allocate free memory
I don't get it, what "this"? If it's refill queue, that's because
I don't like actively returning buffers back via syscall / setsockopt
and trying to transfer them into the napi context (i.e.
napi_pp_put_page) hoping it works / cached well.
If "this" is IO_ZC_RX_UREF, it's because we need to track when a
buffer is given to the userspace, and I don't think some kind of
map / xarray in the hot path is the best for performance solution.
and logic as to where the memory should go (to fast cache, to normal
pp release path, etc) should remain in provider agnostic code paths in
the page_pool. Not maintainable IMO in the long run to have individual
Please do elaborate what exactly is not maintainable here
pp providers customizing non-provider specific code or touching pp
private structs.
...
diff --git a/io_uring/zcrx.c b/io_uring/zcrx.c
index 8382129402ac..6cd3dee8b90a 100644
--- a/io_uring/zcrx.c
+++ b/io_uring/zcrx.c
@@ -2,7 +2,11 @@
...
+static inline struct io_zcrx_area *io_zcrx_iov_to_area(const struct net_iov *niov)
+{
+ struct net_iov_area *owner = net_iov_owner(niov);
+
+ return container_of(owner, struct io_zcrx_area, nia);
Similar to other comment in the other patch, why are we sure this
doesn't return garbage (i.e. it's accidentally called on a dmabuf
net_iov?)
There couldn't be any net_iov at this point not belonging to
the current io_uring instance / etc. Same with devmem TCP,
devmem callbacks can't be called for some random net_iov, the
only place you need to explicitly check is where it comes
from generic path to a devmem aware path like that patched
chunk in tcp.c
+static inline void io_zc_add_pp_cache(struct page_pool *pp,
+ struct net_iov *niov)
+{
+ netmem_ref netmem = net_iov_to_netmem(niov);
+
+#if defined(CONFIG_HAS_DMA) && defined(CONFIG_DMA_NEED_SYNC)
+ if (pp->dma_sync && dma_dev_need_sync(pp->p.dev)) {
IIRC we force that dma_sync == true for memory providers, unless you
changed that and I missed it.
I'll take a look, might remove it.
+ dma_addr_t dma_addr = page_pool_get_dma_addr_netmem(netmem);
+
+ dma_sync_single_range_for_device(pp->p.dev, dma_addr,
+ pp->p.offset, pp->p.max_len,
+ pp->p.dma_dir);
+ }
+#endif
+
+ page_pool_fragment_netmem(netmem, 1);
+ pp->alloc.cache[pp->alloc.count++] = netmem;
IMO touching pp internals in a provider should not be acceptable.
Ok, I can add a page pool helper for that.
pp->alloc.cache is a data structure private to the page_pool and
should not be touched at all by any specific memory provider. Not
maintainable in the long run tbh for individual pp providers to mess
with pp private structs and we hunt for bugs that are reproducible
with 1 pp provider or another, or have to deal with the mental strain
of provider specific handling in what is supposed to be generic
page_pool paths.
I get what you're trying to say about not touching internals,
I agree with that, but I can't share the sentiment about debugging.
It's a pretty specific api, users running io_uring almost always
write directly to io_uring and we solve it. If happens it's not
the case, please do redirect the issue.
IMO the provider must implement the 4 'ops' (alloc, free, init,
Doing 1 buffer per callback wouldn't be scalable at speeds
we're looking at.
--
Pavel Begunkov
