Re: [PATCH v6 02/15] net: generalise net_iov chunk owners

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 05:40:02PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 10/24/24 17:06, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I don't understand what you mean. Callback?

struct memory_provider_ops.  It's a method table or ops vetor, no
callbacks involved.

> Then please go ahead and take a look at the patchset in question
> and see how much of dmabuf handling is there comparing to pure
> networking changes. The point that it's a new set of API and lots
> of changes not related directly to dmabufs stand. dmabufs is useful
> there as an abstraction there, but it's a very long stretch saying
> that the series is all about it.

I did take a look, that's why I replied.

> > > 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
> 
> It sounds that the argument is that you just don't want any
> io_uring APIs, I don't think you'd be able to help you with
> that.

No, that's complete misinterpreting what I'm saying.  Of course an
io_uring API is fine.  But tying low-level implementation details to
to is not.

> > pre-cludes in-kernel uses which would be extremly useful for
> 
> Uses of what? devmem TCP is merged, I'm not removing it,
> and the net_iov abstraction is in there, which can be potentially
> be reused by other in-kernel users if that'd even make sense.

How when you are hardcoding io uring memory registrations instead
of making them a generic dmabuf?  Which btw would also really help
with pre-registering the memry with the iommu to get good performance
in IOMMU-enabled setups.





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux