On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 05:11:13PM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
>
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 02:45:32PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 03:31:15PM +0200, Matteo Croce wrote:
> > > @@ -101,6 +101,7 @@ struct page {
> > > * 32-bit architectures.
> > > */
> > > unsigned long dma_addr[2];
> > > + unsigned long signature;
> > > };
> > > struct { /* slab, slob and slub */
> > > union {
> >
> > No. Signature now aliases with page->mapping, which is going to go
> > badly wrong for drivers which map this page into userspace.
> >
> > I had this as:
> >
> > + unsigned long pp_magic;
> > + unsigned long xmi;
> > + unsigned long _pp_mapping_pad;
> > unsigned long dma_addr[2];
> >
> > and pp_magic needs to be set to something with bits 0&1 clear and
> > clearly isn't a pointer. I went with POISON_POINTER_DELTA + 0x40.
>
> Regardless to the changes required, there's another thing we'd like your
> opinion on.
> There was a change wrt to the previous patchset. We used to store the
> struct xdp_mem_info into page->private. On the new version we store the
> page_pool ptr address in page->private (there's an explanation why on the
> mail thread, but the tl;dr is that we can get some more speed and keeping
> xdp_mem_info is not that crucial). So since we can just store the page_pool
> address directly, should we keep using page->private or it's better to
> do:
>
> + unsigned long pp_magic;
> + unsigned long pp_ptr;
> + unsigned long _pp_mapping_pad;
> unsigned long dma_addr[2];
> and use pp_ptr?
I'd rather you didn't use page_private ... Any reason not to use:
unsigned long pp_magic;
struct page_pool *pp;
unsigned long _pp_mapping_pad;
unsigned long dma_addr[2];
?
