Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <ccf93f92b2539c9dddd1c45fcfa037bb21ccd808.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 01/18] net: Copy slab data for
 sendmsg(MSG_SPLICE_PAGES)
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Jun 2023 11:52:32 +0200
In-Reply-To: <1969749.1687511298@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
References: <20230622191134.54d5cb0b@kernel.org>
         <20230622132835.3c4e38ea@kernel.org> <20230622111234.23aadd87@kernel.org>
         <20230620145338.1300897-1-dhowells@redhat.com>
         <20230620145338.1300897-2-dhowells@redhat.com>
         <1952674.1687462843@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
         <1958077.1687474471@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
         <1969749.1687511298@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4 (3.46.4-1.fc37) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2023-06-23 at 10:08 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:
>=20
> > If we can't reach instant agreement --
> > can you strategically separate out the minimal set of changes required
> > to just kill MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST. IMHO it's worth getting that into
> > 6.5.
>=20
> Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote:
>=20
> > Given all the above, and the late stage of the current devel cycle,
> > would you consider slicing down this series to just kill
> > MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST, as Jakub suggested?
>=20
> I could do that.
>=20
> There is also another alternative.  I could just push the sendpage wrappe=
rs up
> the stack into the higher-level callers.  Basically this:
>=20
> int udp_sendpage(struct sock *sk, struct page *page, int offset,
> 		 size_t size, int flags)
> {
> 	struct bio_vec bvec;
> 	struct msghdr msg =3D { .msg_flags =3D flags | MSG_SPLICE_PAGES };
>=20
> 	if (flags & MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST)
> 		msg.msg_flags |=3D MSG_MORE;
>=20
> 	bvec_set_page(&bvec, page, size, offset);
> 	iov_iter_bvec(&msg.msg_iter, ITER_SOURCE, &bvec, 1, size);
> 	return udp_sendmsg(sk, &msg, size);
> }
>=20
> and kill off sendpage and MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST.

I'm unsure I follow the above ?!? I *thought* sendpage could be killed
even without patch 1/18 and 2/18, leaving some patches in this series
unmodified, and mangling those explicitly leveraging 1/18 to use
multiple sendmsg()s with different flags?

I haven't tried to code the above, but my wild guess/hope is that the
delta should be doable - ideally less then the other option.

Introducing slab support should still be possible later, with hopefully
less work.

Cheers,

Paolo