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;
Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley
        Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United
        Kingdom.
        Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
From:   David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOi1vP9hOhaAWp6ext=6tH7XjKUFAkC0xhkB91QozWr0-fw0NA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOi1vP9hOhaAWp6ext=6tH7XjKUFAkC0xhkB91QozWr0-fw0NA@mail.gmail.com> <20230623225513.2732256-1-dhowells@redhat.com> <20230623225513.2732256-5-dhowells@redhat.com> <CAOi1vP_Bn918j24S94MuGyn+Gxk212btw7yWeDrRcW1U8pc_BA@mail.gmail.com> <3070989.1687793422@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
To:     Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>
Cc:     dhowells@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        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, Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 04/16] ceph: Use sendmsg(MSG_SPLICE_PAGES) rather than sendpage()
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3085214.1687798916.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Mon, 26 Jun 2023 18:01:56 +0100
Message-ID: <3085215.1687798916@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Btw, is it feasible to use con->v2.out_iter_sendpage to apply
> > MSG_SPLICE_PAGES to the iterator to be transmitted as a whole?  It seems
> > to be set depending on iterator type.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "transmitted as a whole".
> con->v2.out_iter_sendpage is set only when zerocopy is desired.  If the
> underlying data is not guaranteed to remain stable, zerocopy behavior
> is not safe.

I think I need to reinstate the per-page sendpage_ok() check here also -
though Al pointed out it isn't sufficiently exhaustive.  There are pages that
sendpage_ok() will return true on that you shouldn't be passing to sendpage().

I'll whip up a patch to partially revert this also.

David