From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ivan Khoronzhuk Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: core: page_pool: add user refcnt and reintroduce page_pool_destroy Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 17:56:13 +0300 Message-ID: <20190702145612.GF4510@khorivan> References: <20190702153902.0e42b0b2@carbon> <156207778364.29180.5111562317930943530.stgit@firesoul> <20190702144426.GD4510@khorivan> <20190702165230.6caa36e3@carbon> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190702165230.6caa36e3@carbon> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Ilias Apalodimas , grygorii.strashko@ti.com, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com, daniel@iogearbox.net, john.fastabend@gmail.com, ast@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 04:52:30PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: >On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 17:44:27 +0300 >Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 04:31:39PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: >> >From: Ivan Khoronzhuk >> > >> >Jesper recently removed page_pool_destroy() (from driver invocation) and >> >moved shutdown and free of page_pool into xdp_rxq_info_unreg(), in-order to >> >handle in-flight packets/pages. This created an asymmetry in drivers >> >create/destroy pairs. >> > >> >This patch add page_pool user refcnt and reintroduce page_pool_destroy. >> >This serves two purposes, (1) simplify drivers error handling as driver now >> >drivers always calls page_pool_destroy() and don't need to track if >> >xdp_rxq_info_reg_mem_model() was unsuccessful. (2) allow special cases >> >where a single RX-queue (with a single page_pool) provides packets for two >> >net_device'es, and thus needs to register the same page_pool twice with two >> >xdp_rxq_info structures. >> >> As I tend to use xdp level patch there is no more reason to mention (2) case >> here. XDP patch serves it better and can prevent not only obj deletion but also >> pool flush, so, this one patch I could better leave only for (1) case. > >I don't understand what you are saying. > >Do you approve this patch, or do you reject this patch? > It's not reject, it's proposition to use both, XDP and page pool patches, each having its goal. -- Regards, Ivan Khoronzhuk