From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E133C06510 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 18:29:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59EBE2184B for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 18:29:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726930AbfGBS3U (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jul 2019 14:29:20 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33934 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726627AbfGBS3U (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jul 2019 14:29:20 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAA2137EE0; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 18:29:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from carbon (ovpn-200-45.brq.redhat.com [10.40.200.45]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F7DA5C29A; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 18:29:08 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 20:29:07 +0200 From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer To: Ivan Khoronzhuk 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, brouer@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: core: page_pool: add user refcnt and reintroduce page_pool_destroy Message-ID: <20190702202907.15fb30ce@carbon> In-Reply-To: <20190702152112.GG4510@khorivan> References: <20190702153902.0e42b0b2@carbon> <156207778364.29180.5111562317930943530.stgit@firesoul> <20190702144426.GD4510@khorivan> <20190702165230.6caa36e3@carbon> <20190702145612.GF4510@khorivan> <20190702171029.76c60538@carbon> <20190702152112.GG4510@khorivan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.29]); Tue, 02 Jul 2019 18:29:20 +0000 (UTC) Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 18:21:13 +0300 Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: > 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 No, I propose using this one, and rejecting the other one. -- Best regards, Jesper Dangaard Brouer MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer