From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (szxga02-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.188]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F5861714BA for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2024 12:06:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.188 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728734788; cv=none; b=ewZWPKb0GHJ5+6CE6UOv13TY1MIz0sN/2a92QKoKzkzQXByUSHiMKRWgsSMKdQzgGiEClXrYF4+LuYfP5ARAt18b4C+IBS0zho+9jn5Fll4XEW9k64sAr/U5usrqSZSWShQjwAvypcZnFOtxA9Nwa8CAvyGBdB5+7mtH17fCQxo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728734788; c=relaxed/simple; bh=IwUtYPQKqU20Pw5cpn9ykl4bTHIrKjZbpIEJm7B8vG8=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Old1nOF4Xygf+XXuieo6b2HY9MxpVdsEb0whSwn030FkwhDj8cXLyX5Fym4BzXhYj82pG8yrSPOl4A6UDsYzAVlKBA9P9K7Rd/mXLFUXOzMSdXPy5/89wRxjILOmRM8H8zCQuoWarx+K/S54DiMOTtqs8403Blsybw9g2EQ60lw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.188 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.88.105]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4XQhvv1XPnzkWcD; Sat, 12 Oct 2024 20:03:07 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggpemf200006.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.185.36.61]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66A98140393; Sat, 12 Oct 2024 20:05:32 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.120.129] (10.67.120.129) by dggpemf200006.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Sat, 12 Oct 2024 20:05:32 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 20:05:31 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: iommu@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/2] fix two bugs related to page_pool To: , , CC: , , , Alexander Lobakin , Robin Murphy , Alexander Duyck , IOMMU , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Jesper Dangaard Brouer , John Fastabend , Matthias Brugger , AngeloGioacchino Del Regno , , , , , , References: <20240925075707.3970187-1-linyunsheng@huawei.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Yunsheng Lin In-Reply-To: <20240925075707.3970187-1-linyunsheng@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.178) To dggpemf200006.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.61) On 2024/9/25 15:57, Yunsheng Lin wrote: > Patch 1 fix a possible time window problem for page_pool. > Patch 2 fix the kernel crash problem at iommu_get_dma_domain > reported in [1]. Hi, all Through the discussions, it seems there are some main concerns as below: 1. Semantics changing of supporting unlimited inflight pages to limited inflight pages that are as large as the pool_size of page_pool. 2. The overhead of finding available pool->items in page_pool_item_add(). Any other concerns I missed here? As it is unclear about the impact of the above concerns, which seemed to lead Paolo to suggest this patchset targetting net-next tree instead of net tree, so I am planning to target the net-next tree keeping the 'Fixes' tag for the next version, if there is any other opinion here, please let me know. Also, I still have the page_frag refactoring patchset pending in the nex-next, please let me know if I should wait for that patchset to be applied before sending this one to the net-next tree. >