Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 1/2] page_pool: add page recycling support based on elevated refcnt

[Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>]

> > Hi, Alexander
> >
> > Thanks for detailed reviewing.
> >

Likewise!
I'll have a look on the entire conversation in a few days...

> > >
> > > So this isn't going to work with the current recycling logic. The
> > > expectation there is that we can safely unmap the entire page as soon
> > > as the reference count is greater than 1.
> >
> > Yes, the expectation is changed to we can always recycle the page
> > when the last user has dropped the refcnt that has given to it when
> > the page is not pfmemalloced.
> >
> > The above expectation is based on that the last user will always
> > call page_pool_put_full_page() in order to do the recycling or do
> > the resource cleanup(dma unmaping..etc).
> >
> > As the skb_free_head() and skb_release_data() have both checked the
> > skb->pp_recycle to call the page_pool_put_full_page() if needed, I
> > think we are safe for most case, the one case I am not so sure above
> > is the rx zero copy, which seems to also bump up the refcnt before
> > mapping the page to user space, we might need to ensure rx zero copy
> > is not the last user of the page or if it is the last user, make sure
> > it calls page_pool_put_full_page() too.
> 
> Yes, but the skb->pp_recycle value is per skb, not per page. So my
> concern is that carrying around that value can be problematic as there
> are a number of possible cases where the pages might be
> unintentionally recycled. All it would take is for a packet to get
> cloned a few times and then somebody starts using pskb_expand_head and
> you would have multiple cases, possibly simultaneously, of entities
> trying to free the page. I just worry it opens us up to a number of
> possible races.

Maybe I missde something, but I thought the cloned SKBs would never trigger
the recycling path, since they are protected by the atomic dataref check in
skb_release_data(). What am I missing?

[...]

Thanks
/Ilias