Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 2 Jul 2019 23:28:30 +0300 | From | Ivan Khoronzhuk <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] net: core: page_pool: add user refcnt and reintroduce page_pool_destroy |
| |
On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 09:58:40PM +0300, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: >On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 08:29:07PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: >>On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 18:21:13 +0300 >>Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org> 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 <ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org> 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 <ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 04:31:39PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: >>>>> >> >From: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org> >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >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. > >There is at least several arguments against this one (related (2) purpose) > >It allows: >- avoid changes to page_pool/mlx5/netsec >- save not only allocator obj but allocator "page/buffer flush" >- buffer flush can be present not only in page_pool but for other allocators > that can behave differently and not so simple solution. >- to not limit cpsw/(potentially others) to use "page_pool" allocator only >.... > >This patch better leave also, as it simplifies error path for page_pool and >have more error prone usage comparing with existent one. > >Please, don't limit cpsw and potentially other drivers to use only >page_pool it can be zca or etc... I don't won't to modify each allocator. >I propose to add both as by fact they solve different problems with common >solution.
I can pick up this one but remove description related to (2) and add appropriate modifications to cpsw.
-- Regards, Ivan Khoronzhuk
| |