From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@intel.com>
To: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@google.com>,
"Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@kernel.org>,
"Paolo Abeni" <pabeni@redhat.com>,
"Lorenzo Bianconi" <lorenzo@kernel.org>,
"Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>,
nex.sw.ncis.osdt.itp.upstreaming@intel.com,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] page_pool: check for PP direct cache locality later
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 11:21:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cb05bde3-ee23-4e52-9df2-07b4c247d60c@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5699d031-d6d2-9cae-7025-2589eb60c0a0@huawei.com>
From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 20:41:24 +0800
> On 2024/3/30 0:55, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
>> Since we have pool->p.napi (Jakub) and pool->cpuid (Lorenzo) to check
>> whether it's safe to use direct recycling, we can use both globally for
>> each page instead of relying solely on @allow_direct argument.
>> Let's assume that @allow_direct means "I'm sure it's local, don't waste
>> time rechecking this" and when it's false, try the mentioned params to
>> still recycle the page directly. If neither is true, we'll lose some
>> CPU cycles, but then it surely won't be hotpath. On the other hand,
>> paths where it's possible to use direct cache, but not possible to
>> safely set @allow_direct, will benefit from this move.
>> The whole propagation of @napi_safe through a dozen of skb freeing
>> functions can now go away, which saves us some stack space.
[...]
>> void page_pool_put_unrefed_page(struct page_pool *pool, struct page *page,
>> unsigned int dma_sync_size, bool allow_direct)
>> {
>> + if (!allow_direct)
>
> It seems we are changing some semantics here, in_softirq() is checked
> even if allow_direct is true before this patch. And it seems in_softirq()
> is not checked if allow_direct is true after this patch? I think we might
> need some assertion to ensure @allow_direct really means "I'm sure it's
> local, don't waste time rechecking this". As my understanding, it is really
> hard to debug this kind of problem, so in_softirq() is always checking.
It's implied that setting @allow_direct to true means "we're certainly
able to do that, we're certainly in the softirq context". I haven't seen
any code which would set it to true outside of softirq context and it's
counter-intuitive TBH.
>
> Perhaps add something like WARN_ONCE() or DEBUG_NET_WARN_ON_ONCE for
> allow_direct being true case to catch the API misuse?
>
>> + allow_direct = page_pool_napi_local(pool);
>> +
>> page = __page_pool_put_page(pool, page, dma_sync_size, allow_direct);
>> if (page && !page_pool_recycle_in_ring(pool, page)) {
>> /* Cache full, fallback to free pages */
>> @@ -969,7 +994,7 @@ void page_pool_use_xdp_mem(struct page_pool *pool, void (*disconnect)(void *),
>> static void page_pool_disable_direct_recycling(struct page_pool *pool)
>> {
>> /* Disable direct recycling based on pool->cpuid.
>> - * Paired with READ_ONCE() in napi_pp_put_page().
>> + * Paired with READ_ONCE() in page_pool_napi_local().
>> */
>> WRITE_ONCE(pool->cpuid, -1);
>>
>
Thanks,
Olek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-03 9:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-29 16:55 [PATCH net-next 0/2] page_pool: allow direct bulk recycling Alexander Lobakin
2024-03-29 16:55 ` [PATCH net-next 1/2] page_pool: check for PP direct cache locality later Alexander Lobakin
2024-03-29 19:21 ` Mina Almasry
2024-03-30 12:41 ` Yunsheng Lin
2024-04-03 9:21 ` Alexander Lobakin [this message]
2024-03-29 16:55 ` [PATCH net-next 2/2] page_pool: try direct bulk recycling Alexander Lobakin
2024-04-03 1:40 ` [PATCH net-next 0/2] page_pool: allow " patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=cb05bde3-ee23-4e52-9df2-07b4c247d60c@intel.com \
--to=aleksander.lobakin@intel.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linyunsheng@huawei.com \
--cc=lorenzo@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nex.sw.ncis.osdt.itp.upstreaming@intel.com \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=toke@redhat.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