On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 3:02 PM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 10/11/24 19:44, David Wei wrote:
> > On 2024-10-09 09:28, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> >> On 10/08, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> >>> On 10/8/24 16:46, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> >>>> On 10/07, David Wei wrote:
> >>>>> From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Currently net_iov stores a pointer to struct dmabuf_genpool_chunk_owner,
> >>>>> which serves as a useful abstraction to share data and provide a
> >>>>> context. However, it's too devmem specific, and we want to reuse it for
> >>>>> other memory providers, and for that we need to decouple net_iov from
> >>>>> devmem. Make net_iov to point to a new base structure called
> >>>>> net_iov_area, which dmabuf_genpool_chunk_owner extends.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: David Wei <dw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> include/net/netmem.h | 21 ++++++++++++++++++++-
> >>>>> net/core/devmem.c | 25 +++++++++++++------------
> >>>>> net/core/devmem.h | 25 +++++++++----------------
> >>>>> 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/include/net/netmem.h b/include/net/netmem.h
> >>>>> index 8a6e20be4b9d..3795ded30d2c 100644
> >>>>> --- a/include/net/netmem.h
> >>>>> +++ b/include/net/netmem.h
> >>>>> @@ -24,11 +24,20 @@ struct net_iov {
> >>>>> unsigned long __unused_padding;
> >>>>> unsigned long pp_magic;
> >>>>> struct page_pool *pp;
> >>>>> - struct dmabuf_genpool_chunk_owner *owner;
> >>>>> + struct net_iov_area *owner;
> >>>>
> >>>> Any reason not to use dmabuf_genpool_chunk_owner as is (or rename it
> >>>> to net_iov_area to generalize) with the fields that you don't need
> >>>> set to 0/NULL? container_of makes everything harder to follow :-(
> >>>
> >>> It can be that, but then io_uring would have a (null) pointer to
> >>> struct net_devmem_dmabuf_binding it knows nothing about and other
> >>> fields devmem might add in the future. Also, it reduces the
> >>> temptation for the common code to make assumptions about the origin
> >>> of the area / pp memory provider. IOW, I think it's cleaner
> >>> when separated like in this patch.
> >>
> >> Ack, let's see whether other people find any issues with this approach.
> >> For me, it makes the devmem parts harder to read, so my preference
> >> is on dropping this patch and keeping owner=null on your side.
> >
> > I don't mind at this point which approach to take right now. I would
> > prefer keeping dmabuf_genpool_chunk_owner today even if it results in a
> > nullptr in io_uring's case. Once there are more memory providers in the
> > future, I think it'll be clearer what sort of abstraction we might need
> > here.
>
> That's the thing about abstractions, if we say that devmem is the
> only first class citizen for net_iov and everything else by definition
> is 2nd class that should strictly follow devmem TCP patterns, and/or
> that struct dmabuf_genpool_chunk_owner is an integral part of net_iov
> and should be reused by everyone, then preserving the current state
> of the chunk owner is likely the right long term approach. If not, and
> net_iov is actually a generic piece of infrastructure, then IMHO there
> is no place for devmem sticking out of every bit single bit of it, with
> structures that are devmem specific and can even be not defined without
> devmem TCP enabled (fwiw, which is not an actual problem for
> compilation, juts oddness).
>
There is no intention of devmem TCP being a first class citizen or
anything. Abstractly speaking, we're going to draw a line in the sand
and say everything past this line is devmem specific and should be
replaced by other users. In this patch you drew the line between
dmabuf_genpool_chunk_owner and net_iov_area, which is fine by me on
first look. What Stan and I were thinking at first glance is
preserving dmabuf_* (and renaming) and drawing the line somewhere
else, which would have also been fine.
My real issue is whether its safe to do all this container_of while
not always checking explicitly for the type of net_iov. I'm not 100%
sure checking in tcp.c alone is enough, yet. I need to take a deeper
look, no changes requested from me yet.
FWIW I'm out for the next couple of weeks. I'll have time to take a
look during that but not as much as now.
--
Thanks,
Mina
