On 2023/11/10 10:59, Mina Almasry wrote: > On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 12:30 AM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> I'm trying to wrap my head around the whole infra... the above line is >> confusing. Why do you increment dma_addr? it will be re-initialized in >> the next iteration. >> > > That is just a mistake, sorry. Will remove this increment. You seems to be combining comments in different thread and replying in one thread, I am not sure that is a good practice and I almost missed the reply below as I don't seem to be cc'ed. > > On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 1:29 AM Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> >>> >>>>> gen_pool_destroy BUG_ON() if it's not empty at the time of destroying. >>>>> Technically that should never happen, because >>>>> __netdev_devmem_binding_free() should only be called when the refcount >>>>> hits 0, so all the chunks have been freed back to the gen_pool. But, >>>>> just in case, I don't want to crash the server just because I'm >>>>> leaking a chunk... this is a bit of defensive programming that is >>>>> typically frowned upon, but the behavior of gen_pool is so severe I >>>>> think the WARN() + check is warranted here. >>>> >>>> It seems it is pretty normal for the above to happen nowadays because of >>>> retransmits timeouts, NAPI defer schemes mentioned below: >>>> >>>> https://lkml.kernel.org/netdev/168269854650.2191653.8465259808498269815.stgit@firesoul/ >>>> >>>> And currently page pool core handles that by using a workqueue. >>> >>> Forgive me but I'm not understanding the concern here. >>> >>> __netdev_devmem_binding_free() is called when binding->ref hits 0. >>> >>> binding->ref is incremented when an iov slice of the dma-buf is >>> allocated, and decremented when an iov is freed. So, >>> __netdev_devmem_binding_free() can't really be called unless all the >>> iovs have been freed, and gen_pool_size() == gen_pool_avail(), >>> regardless of what's happening on the page_pool side of things, right? >> >> I seems to misunderstand it. In that case, it seems to be about >> defensive programming like other checking. >> >> By looking at it more closely, it seems napi_frag_unref() call >> page_pool_page_put_many() directly， which means devmem seems to >> be bypassing the napi_safe optimization. >> >> Can napi_frag_unref() reuse napi_pp_put_page() in order to reuse >> the napi_safe optimization? >> > > I think it already does. page_pool_page_put_many() is only called if > !recycle or !napi_pp_put_page(). In that case > page_pool_page_put_many() is just a replacement for put_page(), > because this 'page' may be an iov. Is there a reason why not calling napi_pp_put_page() for devmem too instead of calling page_pool_page_put_many()? mem provider has a 'release_page' ops, calling page_pool_page_put_many() directly here seems to be bypassing the 'release_page' ops, which means devmem is bypassing most of the main features of page pool. As far as I can tell, the main features of page pool: 1. Allow lockless allocation and freeing in pool->alloc cache by utilizing NAPI non-concurrent context. 2. Allow concurrent allocation and freeing in pool->ring cache by utilizing ptr_ring. 3. Allow dma map/unmap and cache sync optimization. 4. Allow detailed stats logging and tracing. 5. Allow some bulk allocation and freeing. 6. support both skb packet and xdp frame. I am wondering what is the main features that devmem is utilizing by intergrating into page pool? It seems the driver can just call netdev_alloc_devmem() and napi_frag_unref() can call netdev_free_devmem() directly without intergrating into page pool and it should just works too? Maybe we should consider creating a new thin layer, in order to demux to page pool, devmem or other mem type if my suggestion does not work out too? >
