On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 03:23:06PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > > That's not what this series does. It adds the new memory_provider_ops > > set of hooks, with once implementation for dmabufs, and one for > > io_uring zero copy. > > First, it's not a _new_ abstraction over a buffer as you called it > before, the abstraction (net_iov) is already merged. Umm, it is a new ops vector. > Second, you mention devmem TCP, and it's not just a page pool with > "dmabufs", it's a user API to use it and other memory agnostic > allocation logic. And yes, dmabufs there is the least technically > important part. Just having a dmabuf handle solves absolutely nothing. It solves a lot, becaue it provides a proper abstraction. > > So you are precluding zero copy RX into anything but your magic > > io_uring buffers, and using an odd abstraction for that. > > Right io_uring zero copy RX API expects transfer to happen into io_uring > controlled buffers, and that's the entire idea. Buffers that are based > on an existing network specific abstraction, which are not restricted to > pages or anything specific in the long run, but the flow of which from > net stack to user and back is controlled by io_uring. If you worry about > abuse, io_uring can't even sanely initialise those buffers itself and > therefore asking the page pool code to do that. No, I worry about trying to io_uring for not good reason. This pre-cludes in-kernel uses which would be extremly useful for network storage drivers, and it precludes device memory of all kinds. > I'm even more confused how that would help. The user API has to > be implemented and adding a new dmabuf gives nothing, not even > mentioning it's not clear what semantics of that beast is > supposed to be. > The dma-buf maintainers already explained to you last time that there is absolutely no need to use the dmabuf UAPI, you can use dma-bufs through in-kernel interfaces just fine.
