Re: [PATCH net-next v8 00/17] io_uring zero copy rx

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

 



On 12/4/24 17:21, David Wei 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. Data is 'read' using a new io_uring request
type. When done, data is returned via a new shared refill queue. A zero
copy page pool refills a hw rx queue from this refill queue directly. Of
course, the lifetime of these data buffers are managed by io_uring
rather than the networking stack, with different refcounting rules.

This patchset is the first step adding basic zero copy support. We will
extend this iteratively with new features e.g. dynamically allocated
zero copy areas, THP support, dmabuf support, improved copy fallback,
general optimisations and more.

In terms of netdev support, we're first targeting Broadcom bnxt. Patches
aren't included since Taehee Yoo has already sent a more comprehensive
patchset adding support in [1]. Google gve should already support this,
and Mellanox mlx5 support is WIP pending driver changes.

It misses some changes and has unaddressed concerns from Jakub,
so that should rather be an RFC.

--
Pavel Begunkov





[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