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 18:21:13 +0300 Message-ID: <20190702152112.GG4510@khorivan> References: <20190702153902.0e42b0b2@carbon> <156207778364.29180.5111562317930943530.stgit@firesoul> <20190702144426.GD4510@khorivan> <20190702165230.6caa36e3@carbon> <20190702145612.GF4510@khorivan> <20190702171029.76c60538@carbon> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190702171029.76c60538@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 05:10:29PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: >On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 17:56:13 +0300 >Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: > >> 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. > >Just to be clear, if you want this patch to get accepted you have to >reply with your Signed-off-by (as I wrote). > >Maybe we should discuss it in another thread, about why you want two >solutions to the same problem. If it solves same problem I propose to reject this one and use this: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/7/2/651 -- Regards, Ivan Khoronzhuk