Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/6] Device memory TCP TX

[Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@gmail.com>]

On 02/04, Mina Almasry wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 10:32 AM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/4/25 7:06 PM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > On 02/04, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 4:32 AM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> On 2/3/25 11:39 PM, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > >>>> The TX path had been dropped from the Device Memory TCP patch series
> > >>>> post RFCv1 [1], to make that series slightly easier to review. This
> > >>>> series rebases the implementation of the TX path on top of the
> > >>>> net_iov/netmem framework agreed upon and merged. The motivation for
> > >>>> the feature is thoroughly described in the docs & cover letter of the
> > >>>> original proposal, so I don't repeat the lengthy descriptions here, but
> > >>>> they are available in [1].
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Sending this series as RFC as the winder closure is immenient. I plan on
> > >>>> reposting as non-RFC once the tree re-opens, addressing any feedback
> > >>>> I receive in the meantime.
> > >>>
> > >>> I guess you should drop this paragraph.
> > >>>
> > >>>> Full outline on usage of the TX path is detailed in the documentation
> > >>>> added in the first patch.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Test example is available via the kselftest included in the series as well.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The series is relatively small, as the TX path for this feature largely
> > >>>> piggybacks on the existing MSG_ZEROCOPY implementation.
> > >>>
> > >>> It looks like no additional device level support is required. That is
> > >>> IMHO so good up to suspicious level :)
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> It is correct no additional device level support is required. I don't
> > >> have any local changes to my driver to make this work. I think Stan
> > >> on-list was able to run the TX path (he commented on fixes to the test
> > >> but didn't say it doesn't work :D) and one other person was able to
> > >> run it offlist.
> > >
> > > For BRCM I had shared this: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/ZxAfWHk3aRWl-F31@mini-arch/
> > > I have similar internal patch for mlx5 (will share after RX part gets
> > > in). I agree that it seems like gve_unmap_packet needs some work to be more
> > > careful to not unmap NIOVs (if you were testing against gve).
> >
> > What happen if an user try to use devmem TX on a device not really
> > supporting it? Silent data corruption?
> >
> 
> So the tx dma-buf binding netlink API will bind the dma-buf to the
> netdevice. If that fails, the uapi will return failure and devmem tx
> will not be enabled.
> 
> If the dma-binding succeeds, then the device can indeed DMA into the
> dma-addrs in the device. The TX path will dma from the dma-addrs in
> the device just fine and it need not be aware that the dma-addrs are
> coming from a device and not from host memory.
> 
> The only issue that Stan's patches is pointing to, is that the driver
> will likely be passing these dma-buf addresses into dma-mapping APIs
> like dma_unmap_*() and dma_sync_*() functions. Those, AFAIU, will be
> no-ops with dma-buf addresses in most setups, but it's not 100% safe
> to pass those dma-buf addresses to these dma-mapping APIs, so we
> should avoid these calls entirely.
> 
> > Don't we need some way for the device to opt-in (or opt-out) and avoid
> > such issues?
> >
> 
> Yeah, I think likely the driver needs to declare support (i.e. it's
> not using dma-mapping API with dma-buf addresses).

netif_skb_features/ndo_features_check seems like a good fit?