From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul@sk.com>,
willy@infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
kernel_team@skhynix.com, kuba@kernel.org, almasrymina@google.com,
ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org, harry.yoo@oracle.com,
hawk@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, davem@davemloft.net,
john.fastabend@gmail.com, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch,
asml.silence@gmail.com, toke@redhat.com, tariqt@nvidia.com,
edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, saeedm@nvidia.com,
leon@kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com, Liam.Howlett@oracle.com,
vbabka@suse.cz, rppt@kernel.org, surenb@google.com,
mhocko@suse.com, horms@kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, vishal.moola@gmail.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
ziy@nvidia.com, jackmanb@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 9/9] page_pool: access ->pp_magic through struct netmem_desc in page_pool_page_is_pp()
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 11:16:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ce5b4b18-9934-41e3-af04-c34653b4b5fa@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250620041224.46646-10-byungchul@sk.com>
On 20.06.25 06:12, Byungchul Park wrote:
> To simplify struct page, the effort to separate its own descriptor from
> struct page is required and the work for page pool is on going.
>
> To achieve that, all the code should avoid directly accessing page pool
> members of struct page.
>
> Access ->pp_magic through struct netmem_desc instead of directly
> accessing it through struct page in page_pool_page_is_pp(). Plus, move
> page_pool_page_is_pp() from mm.h to netmem.h to use struct netmem_desc
> without header dependency issue.
>
> Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul@sk.com>
> Reviewed-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com>
> Reviewed-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
> Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> Acked-by: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@oracle.com>
> ---
> include/linux/mm.h | 12 ------------
> include/net/netmem.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
> mm/page_alloc.c | 1 +
> 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> index 0ef2ba0c667a..0b7f7f998085 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> @@ -4172,16 +4172,4 @@ int arch_lock_shadow_stack_status(struct task_struct *t, unsigned long status);
> */
> #define PP_MAGIC_MASK ~(PP_DMA_INDEX_MASK | 0x3UL)
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_PAGE_POOL
> -static inline bool page_pool_page_is_pp(struct page *page)
> -{
> - return (page->pp_magic & PP_MAGIC_MASK) == PP_SIGNATURE;
> -}
> -#else
> -static inline bool page_pool_page_is_pp(struct page *page)
> -{
> - return false;
> -}
> -#endif
> -
> #endif /* _LINUX_MM_H */
> diff --git a/include/net/netmem.h b/include/net/netmem.h
> index d49ed49d250b..3d1b1dfc9ba5 100644
> --- a/include/net/netmem.h
> +++ b/include/net/netmem.h
> @@ -56,6 +56,20 @@ NETMEM_DESC_ASSERT_OFFSET(pp_ref_count, pp_ref_count);
> */
> static_assert(sizeof(struct netmem_desc) <= offsetof(struct page, _refcount));
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PAGE_POOL
> +static inline bool page_pool_page_is_pp(struct page *page)
> +{
> + struct netmem_desc *desc = (struct netmem_desc *)page;
> +
> + return (desc->pp_magic & PP_MAGIC_MASK) == PP_SIGNATURE;
> +}
> +#else
> +static inline bool page_pool_page_is_pp(struct page *page)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
> +#endif
I wonder how helpful this cleanup is long-term.
page_pool_page_is_pp() is only called from mm/page_alloc.c, right?
There, we want to make sure that no pagepool page is ever returned to
the buddy.
How reasonable is this sanity check to have long-term? Wouldn't we be
able to check that on some higher-level freeing path?
The reason I am commenting is that once we decouple "struct page" from
"struct netmem_desc", we'd have to lookup here the corresponding "struct
netmem_desc".
... but at that point here (when we free the actual pages), the "struct
netmem_desc" would likely already have been freed separately (remember:
it will be dynamically allocated).
With that in mind:
1) Is there a higher level "struct netmem_desc" freeing path where we
could check that instead, so we don't have to cast from pages to
netmem_desc at all.
2) How valuable are these sanity checks deep in the buddy?
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-23 9:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-20 4:12 [PATCH net-next v6 0/9] Split netmem from struct page Byungchul Park
2025-06-20 4:12 ` [PATCH net-next v6 1/9] netmem: introduce struct netmem_desc mirroring " Byungchul Park
2025-06-23 9:32 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-23 10:28 ` Byungchul Park
2025-06-23 10:38 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-23 12:18 ` Harry Yoo
2025-06-23 19:09 ` Mina Almasry
2025-06-23 19:28 ` Pavel Begunkov
2025-06-24 1:17 ` Byungchul Park
2025-06-20 4:12 ` [PATCH net-next v6 2/9] page_pool: rename page_pool_return_page() to page_pool_return_netmem() Byungchul Park
2025-06-20 4:12 ` [PATCH net-next v6 3/9] page_pool: rename __page_pool_release_page_dma() to __page_pool_release_netmem_dma() Byungchul Park
2025-06-20 4:12 ` [PATCH net-next v6 4/9] page_pool: rename __page_pool_alloc_pages_slow() to __page_pool_alloc_netmems_slow() Byungchul Park
2025-06-20 4:12 ` [PATCH net-next v6 5/9] netmem: use _Generic to cover const casting for page_to_netmem() Byungchul Park
2025-06-20 4:12 ` [PATCH net-next v6 6/9] netmem: remove __netmem_get_pp() Byungchul Park
2025-06-23 4:32 ` Byungchul Park
2025-06-24 0:17 ` Jakub Kicinski
2025-06-24 1:27 ` Byungchul Park
2025-06-20 4:12 ` [PATCH net-next v6 7/9] page_pool: make page_pool_get_dma_addr() just wrap page_pool_get_dma_addr_netmem() Byungchul Park
2025-06-20 4:12 ` [PATCH net-next v6 8/9] netmem: introduce a netmem API, virt_to_head_netmem() Byungchul Park
2025-06-20 4:12 ` [PATCH net-next v6 9/9] page_pool: access ->pp_magic through struct netmem_desc in page_pool_page_is_pp() Byungchul Park
2025-06-23 9:16 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2025-06-23 10:16 ` Byungchul Park
2025-06-23 11:13 ` Zi Yan
2025-06-23 11:25 ` Byungchul Park
2025-06-23 14:58 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-23 15:25 ` Zi Yan
2025-06-24 14:43 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2025-06-24 14:56 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-25 1:24 ` Byungchul Park
2025-06-26 6:35 ` Byungchul Park
2025-06-23 17:06 ` Pavel Begunkov
2025-06-23 17:28 ` Mina Almasry
2025-06-23 18:09 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-06-23 18:14 ` Pavel Begunkov
2025-06-24 1:54 ` Byungchul Park
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ce5b4b18-9934-41e3-af04-c34653b4b5fa@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=Liam.Howlett@oracle.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=almasrymina@google.com \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=asml.silence@gmail.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=byungchul@sk.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=harry.yoo@oracle.com \
--cc=hawk@kernel.org \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org \
--cc=jackmanb@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel_team@skhynix.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=leon@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=saeedm@nvidia.com \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=tariqt@nvidia.com \
--cc=toke@redhat.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=vishal.moola@gmail.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=ziy@nvidia.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).