Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v8 02/14] net: page_pool: create hooks for custom page providers

Pavel Begunkov
2024-05-07T17:34:34Z

On 5/7/24 18:15, Mina Almasry wrote:
> On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 9:55 AM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 5/7/24 17:23, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 01:18:57PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 05:05:12PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>>>> even in tree if you give them enough rope, and they should not have
>>>>>> that rope when the only sensible options are page/folio based kernel
>>>>>> memory (incuding large/huge folios) and dmabuf.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe there is at least one deep confusion here, considering you
>>>>> previously mentioned Keith's pre-mapping patches. The "hooks" are not
>>>>> that about in what format you pass memory, it's arguably the least
>>>>> interesting part for page pool, more or less it'd circulate whatever
>>>>> is given. It's more of how to have a better control over buffer lifetime
>>>>> and implement a buffer pool passing data to users and empty buffers
>>>>> back.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't that more or less exactly what dmabuf is? Why do you need
>>>> another almost dma-buf thing for another project?
>>>
>>> That's the exact point I've been making since the last round of
>>> the series. We don't need to reinvent dmabuf poorly in every
>>> subsystem, but instead fix the odd parts in it and make it suitable
>>> for everyone.
>>
>> Someone would need to elaborate how dma-buf is like that addition
>> to page pool infra.
>
> I think I understand what Jason is requesting here, and I'll take a
> shot at elaborating. AFAICT what he's saying is technically feasible
> and addresses the nack while giving you the uapi you want. It just
> requires a bit (a lot?) of work on your end unfortunately.
>
> CONFIG_UDMABUF takes in a memfd, converts it to a dmabuf, and returns
> it to userspace. See udmabuf_create().
>
> I think what Jason is saying here, is that you can write similar code
> to udmabuf_creat() that takes in a io_uring memory region, and
> converts it to a dmabuf inside the kernel.
>
> I haven't looked at your series yet too closely (sorry!), but I assume
> you currently have a netlink API that binds an io_uring memory region
> to the NIC rx-queue page_pool, right? That netlink API would need to
> be changed to:

No, it's different, I'll skip details, but the main problem is
that those callbacks are used to implement the user api returning
buffers via a ring, where the callback grabs them (in napi context)
and feeds into page pool. That replaces SO_DEVMEM_DONTNEED and the
need for ioctl/setsockopt.

> 1. Take in the io_uring memory.
> 2. Convert it to a dmabuf like udmabuf_create() does.
> 3. Bind the resulting dmabuf to the rx-queue page_pool.
>
> There would be more changes needed vis-a-vis the clean up path and
> lifetime management, but I think this is the general idea.
>
> This would give you the uapi you want, while the page_pool never seen
> non-dmabuf memory (addresses the nack, I think).

--
Pavel Begunkov