Re: [net-next v1 09/16] page_pool: device memory support

Mina Almasry
2023-12-12T14:29:12Z

On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 3:17 AM Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> On 2023/12/12 2:14, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 3:51 AM Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2023/12/11 12:04, Mina Almasry wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 6:26 PM Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 6:04 PM Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 2023/12/9 0:05, Mina Almasry wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 1:30 AM Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As mentioned before, it seems we need to have the above checking every
> >>>>>>> time we need to do some per-page handling in page_pool core, is there
> >>>>>>> a plan in your mind how to remove those kind of checking in the future?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I see 2 ways to remove the checking, both infeasible:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. Allocate a wrapper struct that pulls out all the fields the page pool needs:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> struct netmem {
> >>>>>> /* common fields */
> >>>>>> refcount_t refcount;
> >>>>>> bool is_pfmemalloc;
> >>>>>> int nid;
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>> union {
> >>>>>> struct dmabuf_genpool_chunk_owner *owner;
> >>>>>> struct page * page;
> >>>>>> };
> >>>>>> };
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The page pool can then not care if the underlying memory is iov or
> >>>>>> page. However this introduces significant memory bloat as this struct
> >>>>>> needs to be allocated for each page or ppiov, which I imagine is not
> >>>>>> acceptable for the upside of removing a few static_branch'd if
> >>>>>> statements with no performance cost.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2. Create a unified struct for page and dmabuf memory, which the mm
> >>>>>> folks have repeatedly nacked, and I imagine will repeatedly nack in
> >>>>>> the future.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So I imagine the special handling of ppiov in some form is critical
> >>>>>> and the checking may not be removable.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If the above is true, perhaps devmem is not really supposed to be intergated
> >>>>> into page_pool.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Adding a checking for every per-page handling in page_pool core is just too
> >>>>> hacky to be really considerred a longterm solution.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The only other option is to implement another page_pool for ppiov and
> >>>> have the driver create page_pool or ppiov_pool depending on the state
> >>>> of the netdev_rx_queue (or some helper in the net stack to do that for
> >>>> the driver). This introduces some code duplication. The ppiov_pool &
> >>>> page_pool would look similar in implementation.
> >>
> >> I think there is a design pattern already to deal with this kind of problem,
> >> refactoring common code used by both page_pool and ppiov into a library to
> >> aovid code duplication if most of them have similar implementation.
> >>
> >
> > Code can be refactored if it's identical, not if it is similar. I
>
> Similarity indicates an opportunity to the refactor out the common
> code, like the page_frag case below:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/cover/20231205113444.63015-1-linyunsheng@huawei.com/
>
> But untill we do a proof of concept implemention, it is hard to tell if
> it is feasiable or not.
>
> > suspect the page_pools will be only similar, and if you're not willing
> > to take devmem handling into the page pool then refactoring page_pool
> > code into helpers that do devmem handling may also not be an option.
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> But this was all discussed in detail in RFC v2 and the last response I
> >>>> heard from Jesper was in favor if this approach, if I understand
> >>>> correctly:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/7aedc5d5-0daf-63be-21bc-3b724cc1cab9@redhat.com/
> >>>>
> >>>> Would love to have the maintainer weigh in here.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I should note we may be able to remove some of the checking, but maybe not all.
> >>>
> >>> - Checks that disable page fragging for ppiov can be removed once
> >>> ppiov has frag support (in this series or follow up).
> >>>
> >>> - If we use page->pp_frag_count (or page->pp_ref_count) for
> >>> refcounting ppiov, we can remove the if checking in the refcounting.
> >>>
> >
> > I'm not sure this is actually possible in the short term. The
> > page_pool uses both page->_refcount and page->pp_frag_count for
> > refcounting, and I will not be able to remove the special handling
> > around page->_refcount as i'm not allowed to call page_ref_*() APIs on
> > a non-struct page.
>
> the page_ref_*() API may be avoided using the below patch:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20231113130041.58124-7-linyunsheng@huawei.com/
>

Even after the patch above, you're still calling page_ref_count() in
the page_pool to check for recycling, so after that patch you're still
using page->_refcount.

> But I am not sure how to do that for tx part if devmem for tx is not
> intergating into page_pool, that is why I suggest having a tx implementation
> for the next version, so that we can have a whole picture of devmem.
>

I strongly prefer to keep the TX implementation in a separate series.
This series is complicated to implement and review as it is, and is
hitting the 15 patch limit anyway.

> >
> >>> - We may be able to store the dma_addr of the ppiov in page->dma_addr,
> >>> but I'm unsure if that actually works, because the dma_buf dmaddr is
> >>> dma_addr_t (u32 or u64), but page->dma_addr is unsigned long (4 bytes
> >>> I think). But if it works for pages I may be able to make it work for
> >>> ppiov as well.
> >>>
> >>> - Checks that obtain the page->pp can work with ppiov if we align the
> >>> offset of page->pp and ppiov->pp.
> >>>
> >>> - Checks around page->pp_magic can be removed if we also have offset
> >>> aligned ppiov->pp_magic.
> >>>
> >>> Sadly I don't see us removing the checking for these other cases:
> >>>
> >>> - page_is_pfmemalloc(): I'm not allowed to pass a non-struct page into
> >>> that helper.
> >>
> >> We can do similar trick like above as bit 1 of page->pp_magic is used to
> >> indicate that if it is a pfmemalloc page.
> >>
> >
> > Likely yes.
> >
> >>>
> >>> - page_to_nid(): I'm not allowed to pass a non-struct page into that helper.
> >>
> >> Yes, this one need special case.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> - page_pool_free_va(): ppiov have no va.
> >>
> >> Doesn't the skb_frags_readable() checking will protect the page_pool_free_va()
> >> from being called on devmem?
> >>
> >
> > This function seems to be only called from veth which doesn't support
> > devmem. I can remove the handling there.
> >
> >>>
> >>> - page_pool_sync_for_dev/page_pool_dma_map: ppiov backed by dma-buf
> >>> fundamentally can't get mapped again.
> >>
> >> Can we just fail the page_pool creation with PP_FLAG_DMA_MAP and
> >> DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC flags for devmem provider?
> >>
> >
> > Jakub says PP_FLAG_DMA_MAP must be enabled for devmem, such that the
> > page_pool handles the dma mapping of the devmem and the driver doesn't
> > use it on its own.
>
> I am not sure what benefit does it bring by enabling the DMA_MAP for devmem,
> as devmem seems to call dma_buf_map_attachment() in netdev_bind_dmabuf(), it
> does not really need enabling PP_FLAG_DMA_MAP to get the dma addr for the
> devmem chunk.

--
Thanks,
Mina