On 4/27/24 03:11, Mina Almasry wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 5:18 PM David Wei <dw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2024-04-02 5:20 pm, Mina Almasry wrote:
@@ -69,20 +106,26 @@ net_iov_binding(const struct net_iov *niov)
*/
typedef unsigned long __bitwise netmem_ref;
+static inline bool netmem_is_net_iov(const netmem_ref netmem)
+{
+#if defined(CONFIG_PAGE_POOL) && defined(CONFIG_DMA_SHARED_BUFFER)
I am guessing you added this to try and speed up the fast path? It's
overly restrictive for us since we do not need dmabuf necessarily. I
spent a bit too much time wondering why things aren't working only to
find this :(
My apologies, I'll try to put the changelog somewhere prominent, or
notify you when I do something that I think breaks you.
Yes, this is a by-product of a discussion with regards to the
page_pool benchmark regressions due to adding devmem. There is some
background on why this was added and the impact on the
bench_page_pool_simple tests in the cover letter.
For you, I imagine you want to change this to something like:
#if defined(CONFIG_PAGE_POOL)
#if defined(CONFIG_DMA_SHARED_BUFFER) || defined(CONFIG_IOURING)
or something like that, right? Not sure if this is something I should
Feels a bit flimsy, if the argument is that you want to be able
to disable netmem overhead, then adding a netmem config option
sounds like a better way forward.
I have doubts this conditional handling is desirable in the first
place, but perhaps I missed the discussion.
do here or if something more appropriate to be in the patches you
apply on top.
I additionally think you may also need to run the
page_pool_benchmark_simple tests like I do in the cover letter to see
if you're affecting those.
--
Pavel Begunkov
