From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 02/15] xsk: add user memory registration support
 sockopt
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 23:26:41 +0300
Message-ID: <20180423232619-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <20180423135619.7179-1-bjorn.topel@gmail.com>
 <20180423135619.7179-3-bjorn.topel@gmail.com>
 <20180423190615-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <CAJ+HfNjwMFig+aJbacFK--5_1i8F2DLSyAUOvU12Xc-OvJBAzQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180423231026-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <CAJ+HfNhbNeBfiMP+dK0ZGU0dfYrkWpo5jOAidUoUnkxRMBb0xg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "Karlsson, Magnus" <magnus.karlsson@intel.com>,
        "Duyck, Alexander H" <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_T=F6pel?= <bjorn.topel@intel.com>,
        michael.lundkvist@ericsson.com,
        "Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>,
        "Singhai, Anjali" <anjali.singhai@intel.com>,
        "Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_T=F6pel?= <bjorn.topel@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:37860 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1755165AbeDWU0n (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 23 Apr 2018 16:26:43 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJ+HfNhbNeBfiMP+dK0ZGU0dfYrkWpo5jOAidUoUnkxRMBb0xg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:15:18PM +0200, Björn Töpel wrote:
> 2018-04-23 22:11 GMT+02:00 Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>:
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:00:15PM +0200, Björn Töpel wrote:
> >> 2018-04-23 18:18 GMT+02:00 Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> >> +static void xdp_umem_unpin_pages(struct xdp_umem *umem)
> >> >> +{
> >> >> +     unsigned int i;
> >> >> +
> >> >> +     if (umem->pgs) {
> >> >> +             for (i = 0; i < umem->npgs; i++)
> >> >
> >> > Since you pin them with FOLL_WRITE, I assume these pages
> >> > are written to.
> >> > Don't you need set_page_dirty_lock here?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hmm, I actually *removed* it from the RFC V2, but after doing some
> >> homework, I think you're right. Thanks for pointing this out!
> >>
> >> Thinking more about this; This function is called from sk_destruct,
> >> and in the Tx case the sk_destruct can be called from interrupt
> >> context, where set_page_dirty_lock cannot be called.
> >>
> >> Are there any preferred ways of solving this? Scheduling the whole
> >> xsk_destruct call to a workqueue is one way (I think). Any
> >> cleaner/better way?
> >>
> >> [...]
> >
> > Defer unpinning pages until the next tx call?
> >
> 
> If the sock is released, there wont be another tx call.

unpin them on socket release too?

> Or am I
> missing something obvious?
> 
> >
> >> >> +static int __xdp_umem_reg(struct xdp_umem *umem, struct xdp_umem_reg *mr)
> >> >> +{
> >> >> +     u32 frame_size = mr->frame_size, frame_headroom = mr->frame_headroom;
> >> >> +     u64 addr = mr->addr, size = mr->len;
> >> >> +     unsigned int nframes;
> >> >> +     int size_chk, err;
> >> >> +
> >> >> +     if (frame_size < XDP_UMEM_MIN_FRAME_SIZE || frame_size > PAGE_SIZE) {
> >> >> +             /* Strictly speaking we could support this, if:
> >> >> +              * - huge pages, or*
> >> >
> >> > what does "or*" here mean?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Oops, I'll change to just 'or' in the next revision.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> Björn